File 11432

Linking extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction and to motivational theories
A comparison between the public sector (nurses) and the private sector (call centre agents)
University of Maastricht Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Department of Organization and Strategy Holtum, December 11 2007 Oudejans, R. ID 072346 Supervisor: Drs. N. L. Van den Elst Master thesis
th
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is two-sided. This thesis examines the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the moderating variables influencing this relationship, compared over the public sector and the private sector. Nurses represent the public sector while call centre agents represent the private sector. This thesis also investigates the relationship between various motivational theories and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The motivational theories included in this research are the equity theory, expectancy theory, goal-setting theory, attribution theory, theory X and Y, cognitive dissonance theory, investment model, and cognitive evaluation theory. This thesis also checks which theory is better applicable to which group.
This study found that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are negatively correlated to each other. In addition, intrinsic motivation is positively correlated to job satisfaction while extrinsic motivation is negatively correlated to job satisfaction. Call centre agents are more extrinsically motivated and less intrinsically motivated than nurses. Moreover, call centre agents are less satisfied than nurses. Concerning the effects of one of the two groups on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction, this research found that call centre agents have a stronger effect on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction and on the relationship between extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. However, the last effect was not found significant.
This study also found that almost all theories were related to at least intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. The equity theory is positively related to extrinsic motivation. The expectancy theory is positively related to both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and better applicable to call centre agents. The next theory, goal setting theory, is positively related to both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as well. The attribution theory, however, shows some mixed results. One construct is positively related to extrinsic motivation. Moreover, this construct depicts that, concerning the relationship with extrinsic motivation, the theory is better applicable to call center agents while for the relationship with intrinsic motivation, the theory is better applicable to nurses. The second construct of the attribution theory shows that the theory is negatively related to extrinsic motivation but positively related to intrinsic motivation. Regarding theory X and Y, the theory is found to be positively related to extrinsic motivation while negatively related to intrinsic motivation. For the relationship between theory X and Y
and intrinsic motivation, the theory is better suited for nurses. The cognitive dissonance theory is found to be negatively related to intrinsic motivation. The investment model is negatively related to extrinsic motivation but positively related to intrinsic motivation. Regarding the relationship between the investment model and extrinsic motivation, the theory is better applicable to nurses and for the relationship with intrinsic motivation, the theory is better suited for call centre agents. The last theory, cognitive evaluation theory, did not find any significant relationships with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, regarding the relationship with the cognitive evaluation theory and intrinsic motivation, the theory is better applicable to nurses.
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Theories on motivation 2.1 Equity theory 2.2 Expectancy theory 2.3 Goal-setting theory 2.4 Attribution theory 2.5 Theory X and Y 2.6 Cognitive dissonance theory 2.7 Investment model 2.8 Cognitive evaluation theory
8 9 11 13 17 19 21 22 24
3. Job satisfaction 3.1 Job satisfaction defined 3.2 Determinants of job satisfaction 3.3 Correlations of job satisfaction with other variables 3.3.1 Job involvement 3.3.2 Organizational citizenship behaviour 3.3.3 Organizational commitment 3.3.4 Turnover 3.3.5 Absenteeism 3.3.6 Perceived stress 3.3.7 Job performance 3.3.8 Productivity 3.3.9 Life satisfaction 3.3.10 Mental health 3.3.11 Motivation
27 27 27 31 31 33 34 35 37 39 40 43 44 47 48
4. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation 4.1 Intrinsic motivation 4.2 Extrinsic motivation 4.3 The influence of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation 4.3.1 The start of the debate 4.3.2 Conclusions of the debate 4.4 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in nursing units and call centres 4.4.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in nursing units 4.4.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in call centres
54 54 56 61 61 64 67 67 69
5. Hypotheses development 5.1 Hypotheses 1-8 5.2 Hypotheses on motivational theories 5.3 Framework
72 72 76 81
6. Methodology 6.1 Questionnaire design 6.2 Variables and measures 6.2.1 Dependent variable 6.2.2 Independent variables 6.2.2.1 Intrinsic motivation 6.2.2.2 Extrinsic motivation 6.2.2.3 Motivational theories 6.2.2.4 Sector 6.2.3 Control variables 6.3 Validity and reliability tests 6.4 Data analysis and hypotheses tests
82 82 85 85 85 85 86 86 87 87 87 90
7. Data analysis and results 7.1 Characteristics of the sample 7.2 Correlations 7.3 Regression assumptions 7.4 Testing hypotheses 7.4.1 Hypothesis 1 7.4.2 Hypotheses 2 and 3 7.4.3 Hypotheses 4 and 5 7.4.4 Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 7.4.5 Hypotheses of motivational theories
93 93 98 98 99 99 100 100 101 103
8. Discussion and conclusion 8.1 Addressing the problem statement 8.2 Addressing the motivational theories 8.3 Implications 8.3.1 Implications for academic literature 8.3.2 Implications for managerial practice 8.4 Conclusion
106 106 109 111 111 111 113
9. Limitations
115
References
119
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C
160 169 187
Chapter 1: Introduction
In 2006, around 185,000 persons (only 10,000 in 1996) were working in call centres in the Netherlands (CBS-Statline, 2007a). Introduced in the 1960s in the United States, call centres are facilities that centralise telephone sales, customer-service, technical support and other telephone-based operations for an organisation (Ubaldi, 1997). In other words, a call centre is part of an organisation that aims at being most efficient, effective, and customer-friendly in dealing with incoming and outgoing calls. King (2003) adds that working in a call centre demands an immense amount of emotional labour because this line of work needs continuous interaction with customers and the ability to regulate emotions at the job. Emotional labour occurs when an employee has to display emotions desired by the organisation during personal interactions with the customers (Morris and Feldman, 1996). Even when encountering angry customers, whether they are right or wrong, a call centre agent has to apply organisational standards and assume that the customer is always right.
Call centres try to stay up-to-date in technological advances and global demands for costcutting initiatives (Lewig and Dollard, 2003). One does not have to be a genius to understand that this could lead to problems. Working in call centres, even in the ones that focus on quality instead of quantity, can be monotonous, very demanding, and stress-sensitive (Lewig and Dollard, 2003; Taylor and Bain, 1999; Wallace, Eagleson and Waldersee, 2000). This results in high levels of absenteeism and turnover, higher than in other employment sectors (Bain, Watson, Mulvey, Taylor and Gall, 2002; King, 2003; Lewig and Dollard, 2003).
Like the call centre industry, the health care industry can be categorized in the service sector. In 2004, almost a million individuals were working in the health care industry in the Netherlands. From this number, almost 250,000 individuals were listed to work in hospitals. Around 165,000 employees (including interns) were working in hospitals as (male)nurses (CBS-Statline, 2007b). The hospital is the principal location of modern medical practice. According to Gray (1984), nursing has conventionally occupied the middle range of the hierarchical medical division of labour because nurses generally outrank non-medical support staff and medical technicians but are subordinate to doctors and hospital administrators. The position of nursing in the health care industry has caused several problems since the start of this profession. Nurses have often been denied the status of a true profession, have received
-1-
Introduction
lower wages in comparison to other professions, had restrictions on the range of nursing tasks, and have a lack of professional autonomy (Freidson, 1970 in Gray, 1984). Nowadays, nurses have more responsibility and authority with regard to the practice of medicine and nursing is now widely accepted as a profession (Tummers, Van Merode and Landeweerd, 2006). Although nurses salary has increased over the past few years ("Survey trio find nurses' pay is on the rise", 2006), it still remains rather low in comparison to other professions ("Money matters", 2006; Pitcher, 2006; Steltzer, Woods and Gasda, 2003). More strikingly, in a female-dominated profession (around 90 percent), male nurses still earn more than female nurses for doing the same job ("Money matters", 2006; Steltzer et al., 2003).
More and more firms are realizing the importance of having motivated and satisfied employees. Employee motivation is a crucial element in a successful organisation. Employee satisfaction is often referred to in a same way as employee motivation. However, being motivated and being satisfied are two related but different things. The word motivation comes from the ancient Latin verb movere, which means to urge or to move. The problem with finding a suitable definition of motivation is that there are so many definitions available in the literature. This could be due to the many different motivational theories present and the various fields where motivation is used. Managers and supervisors acknowledge the importance of motivation in organizations for creating a successful enterprise. Employees that are motivated to work long and hard are normally more productive than employees that are not motivated (Daniels and Radebaugh, 2001). Daniels and Radebaugh (2001) continue by stating that higher productivity, caused by increased work motivation, normally reduces production costs. As mentioned before, there are several definitions on motivation available. One of them is Robbins (2003), who defines motivation as the eagerness to do something, conditioned by this actions capacity to satisfy some specific need for the individual. Another definition is given by Kinicki and Kreitner (2003), who depict motivation as those psychological processes that cause the stimulation, direction, and determination of voluntary actions that are goal oriented. In other words, motivation is what drives individuals to do what they do. Motivation can be traced back in numerous aspects. When one is a member of a soccer club, there can be a number of drives for his motivation to be part of this club. He can be motivated to sport in order to obtain a good health, to work on his social skills, to get away from his parents who are annoying him, to lie in the mud, and so on. Simple physical needs also cause motivation. When one is sitting in the living room and feeling hungry, the physical need for food makes him or her get up from the comfortable couch to the closet or fridge -2-
Introduction
where the food is stored. If he is not satisfied with what he comes across in the closet and fridge, he may even decide to drive to the supermarket and to buy the groceries he needs for cooking an appropriate dish. If one is feeling tired, the physical need causes the motivation to go to bed (depending on where this person is and at what time of the day this feeling occurs).
The first theories on motivation and work motivation come from Herzberg (1959), McGregor (1960), and Maslow (1954). The two-factor theory, or motivation-hygiene theory, found that the answers people gave when they felt good about their work were significantly different from the answers given when they felt bad about their work (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959). In the chapter on job satisfaction, the link between the motivation-hygiene theory and job satisfaction will be elaborated. Maslows hierarchy of needs theory depicts that within every human there exists a hierarchy of needs and that when one of those needs becomes satisfied, the human moves up the hierarchy to the next need (Maslow, 1954 in Robbins, 2003). McGregors theory X and Y explains two distinct views (positive and negative) of human beings (McGregor, 1960 in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). The theory of Maslow will be not elaborated in this paper but theory X and Y will be clarified in chapter 2 on theories of motivation.
A number of other motivational theories have been developed as well. One could think of the equity theory by Adams (1963; 1965 in Harder, 1991) that states that employees balance what they contribute to a job and get out of it and compare this ratio to other employees. Another theory that is prominent in the field of motivation is the expectancy theory by Victor Vroom. The expectancy theory, based on work of Atkinson, Lewin, Peak, and others, holds that an individual will act in a certain way based on the expectation that the act will be followed by a specific outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome (e.g. Vroom, 1964 in Isaac, Zerbe and Pitt, 2001; in Kopelman and Thompson, 1976; in Kopf, 1992; in Robbins, 2003). An additional motivational theory is the goal setting theory with as main proponent Locke. According to Locke (1968, e.g. in Austin and Bobko, 1985; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Locke, 1978; in Locke and Latham, 2002), specific goals increase performance, and difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than easy goals. These motivational theories are just some of the incredible list of theories available. Some of them that are interesting for this research will be elaborated later on in this paper in chapter 2 on theories of motivation.
-3-
Introduction
The topic of motivation, as with the motivational theories, has been discussed extensively. In general, total motivation consists of two separate constructs, namely intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. The same distinction will be made in this research. Intrinsic motivation is the motivation to do something for its own sake, for the pure enjoyment of the activity itself (Hennessey and Amabile, 2005). It is the desire to work on something or do something since it is involving, challenging, exciting, interesting, or satisfying (Robbins, 2003). When applied to work, intrinsic motivation means that employees genuinely care about their work, that employees search for better ways to get work done, and that employees are energised and committed to do it well (Thomas, 2000). Intrinsic motivators are an endogenous part of an individuals involvement in an action. According to Amabile (1993) those intrinsic motivators are necessarily bound up with the work itself. Next to intrinsic motivation, there is extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is the motivation to do something in order to attain some external goal or meet some externally imposed constraint (Hennessey and Amabile, 2005). Extrinsic motivation is performing an activity with a feeling of being pressured, tension, anxiety, just to make sure that one would receive a desired result (Lindenberg, 2001). Extrinsically motivated behaviours are actions that cause the attainment of rewards that are externally imposed, including material possessions, salary, additional bonuses, feedback and evaluations from others, fringe benefits, and prestige (Ryan and Deci, 2000b). There has been much debate between proponents of extrinsic motivation theory and intrinsic motivation theory regarding the use and influence of rewards on intrinsic motivation (see Deci, 1971; Deci, Cascio and Krusell, 1975; Deci, Koestner and Ryan, 1999; Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman and Ryan, 1981; Eisenberger and Cameron, 1996; Eisenberger and Cameron, 1998; Eisenberger, Pierce and Cameron, 1999a; Eisenberger, Rhoades and Cameron, 1999b; Tang and Hall, 1995 in Henderlong and Lepper, 2002; Lepper, Henderlong and Gingras, 1999; Cameron and Pierce, 1994; 1996 in Lindenberg, 2001; Ryan and Deci, 2000b). The comments of those different views will be discussed later in this paper.
As has been said before, motivation is related to, but different from job satisfaction. The concept of job satisfaction has been researched as extensively as (work) motivation. According to Kinicki and Kreitner (2003), job satisfaction is an affective or emotional response toward a variety of aspects of ones job. It is important to understand that job satisfaction is some kind of total sum of various aspects of work. One can be fairly happy with his current salary but at the same time, one can be incredibly annoyed by his supervisors and colleagues. This shows that job satisfaction is a combination of several factors. Because -4-
Introduction
satisfaction is an emotional response, it is very personal and can mean different things to different employees. Kinicki and Kreitner (2003) suggest that there are five predominant models of job satisfaction that specify its causes, namely need fulfilment, equity, discrepancy, value attainment, and genetic components. These models will be elaborated in chapter 3 (on job satisfaction). Robbins (2003) adds that job satisfaction refers to an individuals general attitude toward his or her job. When a person is satisfied with his present job, he holds positive attitudes toward his work and when a person is dissatisfied, he holds negative attitudes toward his work. Similar to motivation, job satisfaction is an important issue for managers to consider. Several authors, like Freeman (1978) and McEvoy and Cascio (1985), show that job satisfaction is an important determinant of labour market mobility and that dissatisfied employees can lead to increases in turnover rates of organisations. As could be reasoned by common sense, employees that are satisfied with their current jobs show a higher worker productivity (Mangione and Quinn, 1975). Likewise, when employees report higher levels of satisfaction, the number of cases of absenteeism is decreasing (Clegg, 1983). In the chapter of job satisfaction several constructs (e.g. organizational citizenship behaviour, motivation, job involvement, life satisfaction), with which job satisfaction is correlated, will be discussed and clarified. These relationships between job satisfaction and other variables will be applied to the two relevant samples for this research, namely to call centre agents and nurses in hospitals. Moreover, the relationships between the various motivational theories included in this research and the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation will be elaborated on.
The majority of research on work motivation and job satisfaction focuses on either of the two topics. Although many acknowledge that there is some link between the two, it is hard to find studies that relate both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation combined to job satisfaction. The problem of most studies relating intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction is that results are often different and contradicting (Eskildsen, Kristensen and Westlund, 2004). This is due to that these studies are limited to single companies and specific countries (Eskildsen et al., 2004). This can be seen in the research done by Clark, Oswald and Warr (1996), Finlay, Martin, Roman and Blum (1995, in Eskildsen et al., 2004), Gaertner and Robinson (1999), Groot and van de Brink (1999), Miles, Patrick and King (1996), Robie, Ryan, Schmeider, Parra and Smith (1998, in Eskildsen et al., 2004), Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza (2000), Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza (2003). Regarding nursing units and call centres environments,
-5-
Introduction
not much research has been conducted on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Even research in general linking extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction is hard to find, if existent. This paper tries to clarify the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with job satisfaction and to apply it to two different groups of employees, namely to call centre agents and nurses. Furthermore, several motivational theories will be linked to the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to find out what the relationships are between those constructs. In order to shed a light on these problems, this research will focus on whether employees in a specific sector are more motivated through extrinsic factors, such as salary, than through intrinsic factors. It would be attention-grabbing to find out how job satisfaction is affected with the problems that the industry is facing. With respect to the profession of nursing, it would be fascinating to see what the role of motivation and job satisfaction is in this employment sector. A comparison between the two sectors is what this paper is aiming at.
The central aim of this thesis is to investigate the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. The central questions in this thesis are: What is the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the one hand and job satisfaction on the other hand and the possible moderating variables influencing this relationship in two different sectors, namely men and women working as a nurse in hospitals (public service sector) and men and women working in call centres (private service sector)? Furthermore, what is the relationship between several motivational theories, included in this research, with the constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation? Data will be gathered by means of a questionnaire, which will be handed out to respondents working in either of the two sectors that are relevant for this research. The relevant subquestions are:
What are the various motivational theories that are interesting for this research? What are the different aspects of job satisfaction? What is the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this research? What does the existing literature depict about the link between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction? What are the moderating variables influencing the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction and why are they relevant for this research?
-6-
Introduction
This paper will focus on the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to job satisfaction applied to two samples (nurses and call centre agents). Chapter 2 will discuss several theories of motivation, followed by an extensive review on the construct of job satisfaction in chapter 3. Next, in chapter 4, the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are clarified and discussed. Chapter 5 deals with the hypotheses relevant for this paper. Chapter 6 will focus on the methodology in this research. In chapter 7, the results of this research will be showed. Then, a conclusion will be given to the most essential questions in this research, namely what the relationship is of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction in the two relevant sectors and what the influence of various motivational theories is on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Lastly, limitations of this research and suggestions for future research will be provided.
-7-
Chapter 2: Theories on motivation
The basic job of a manager or a supervisor is to get work done by his employees. In order to do this successfully, the manager of supervisor must be able to comprehend the underlying psychological processes that motivate his employees. A lot of research has been conducted in the field of motivational theories. To work out all motivational theories available in detail would be well beyond the scope of this paper. To list all motivational theories would be an impossible process since theories are being revised, developed, criticised, and so on, as this paper is being written. Moreover, many theories are in some way related to each other; it is even harder to distinguish between them. The motivational theories included in this research are linked to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to find out what their possible influence could be on those two constructs. This is the so-called exploratory part of this study.
The motivational theories that are relevant for this research are the equity theory (Adams, 1963; 1965 in Carrell and Dittrich, 1978; in Cosier and Dalton, 1983; in Harder, 1991; in Huseman, Hatfield and Miles, 1987; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Robbins, 2003), expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964 in Harder, 1991; in Isaac et al., 2001; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Kopelman, 1976; in Kopf, 1992; in Reinharth and Wahba, 1975; in Robbins, 2003; in Wahba and House, 1972), goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968 in Austin and Bobko, 1985; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Locke, 1978; in Locke, 2004; in Locke and Latham, 2002; in Locke, Shaw, Saari and Latham, 1981; in Robbins, 2003), attribution theory (Heider, 1958 in Borkowski and Allen, 2003; in Kelley, 1973; in Kelley and Michela, 1980), theory X and Y (McGregor, 1960 in Burns, 1967; in Carson, 2005; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Meeker, 1982; in Robbins, 2003; in Schein, 1975), cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957 in Robbins, 2003), investment model (Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult and Farrell, 1983; Rusbult, Johnson and Morrow, 1986), and cognitive evaluation (Deci, 1971; Deci et al., 1975; Deci et al., 1981).
The following theories on motivation are not discussed in this research (due to time and space limitations) but are still prominent in the field of motivation: The hierarchy of needs theory (Maslow, 1943), two-factor theory or motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959), achievement motivation theory (McClelland, 1975), reinforcement theory or operant conditioning theory (Skinner, 1938), ERG theory (Alderfer, 1972), self-
-8-
Theories on motivation
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), social cognition theory (Bandura, 1977a; 1986; 1997), theory Z (Ouchi, 1981), control theory (later renamed choice theory) (Glasser, 1984), self-perception theory (Bem, 1967), scientific management (Taylor, 1911), Hawthorne experiments (Mayo, 1933), cognitive behaviourism (Tolman, 1932), social learning (Bandura, 1977b), drive theory (Hull, 1952), correspondent inference theory (Jones & Davis, 1967), self-consistency theory (Aronson, 1968), self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), selfdiscrepancy theory (Higgins, Bond, Klein & Strauman, 1986), (social) interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949), social exchange theory (Homans, 1958), and reactance theory (Brehm, 1966). The first motivational theory that will be elaborated in this chapter is the equity theory with as main proponent Adams.
2.1 Equity theory
One thing that is common for humans is to compare themselves to others. One theory that comes forth from this evaluating of ones self and each other is the equity theory. Equity theory is based on cognitive dissonance theory developed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). The cognitive dissonance theory will be discussed as well later on. John Stacey Adams put his equity theory forward in 1963. Central to comprehending Adams equity theory of motivation is an understanding of the individual-organization exchange relationship.
Carrell and Dittrich (1978) depict that most theorists discussing the equity theory posit three primary points. First, employees perceive a fair return for what they contribute to their job. Second, employees then run some kind of social comparison what their compensation should be with their colleagues. Last, each employee that perceives himself to be in an inequitable situation will try to decrease this inequity. Robbins (2003) and Adams (1963; 1965, in Harder, 1991) explain that the equity theory is a theory that centres on perceived fairness of an individual. An employee reflects on how much effort he has expended and compares this to what he has got from it. After this individual evaluation of his input-output ratio, he will compare his ratio to the input-output ratios of others, especially the direct peers. If the employee considers his input-output ratio to be equal to ratios of other relevant employees, a state of equity exists. The employee will have a feeling that he is treated fairly. In this
-9-
situation of equity, the person is seemingly content and will not act to imbalance the condition (Cosier and Dalton, 1983).
Naturally, when an employee perceives unequal ratios between him and his counterparts, there will be a state of inequity. There are three types of equity, namely external, internal, and employee equity (Konopaske and Werner, 2002). External equity arises when employees use comparisons to others who have the same job but work in different organizations. Internal equity occurs when employees compare themselves to others who have a different job but work in the same organization. Employee equity exists when an employee compares himself to other employees who occupy the same job within the same organization. The most relevant of the three types seems the employee equity, since an employee tends to evaluate his own input-output ratio to those of his direct peers. One possible reason for this is that it is the easiest comparison to make for an employee. He can see how much effort his colleague has put into a job and how much he got from it. This is harder to do when making comparisons regarding internal and external equity.
Kinicki and Kreitner (2003) emphasize the aspect of ratios in the equity theory. Since equity is based on comparing ratios, inequity will not necessarily be perceived because someone else receives greater rewards. This inequity can be two-sided. An employee can feel overrewarded when he thinks that his ratio is better than others and he can feel underrewarded when he thinks that he should get more for his work. Adams (1963; 1965 in Cosier and Dalton, 1983) suggests that although both overreward and underreward produce tension, they may not have equal effects. Overreward can be perceived as luck or fortune and therefore not causing much tension. It is possible that overreward will not be perceived as inequity as such. If this overreward is viewed as desirable, the tension to decrease inequity would be zero in fact. Logically, this will be different for each person. Moreover, there could be a difference between public (hospitals) and private (call centres) organisations concerning the tension to decrease inequities when they occur.
People try to correct inequities when they occur (Kaplan, Reckers and Reynolds, 1986; Robbins, 2003). There are four statements that relate to inequity (Adams, 1963; 1965 in Cosier and Dalton, 1983; Adams, 1963; 1965 in Huseman et al., 1987). First, the perceived inequity creates tension in an individual. Second, the size of tension is proportional to the
- 10 -
degree of inequity. Next, the created tension motivates the employee to decrease it. Last, the strength of the motivation to decrease the inequity is proportional to the perceived inequity. Robbins (2003) continues with several choices that employees have when they encounter an inequity. First, they can alter either their own or others inputs or outcomes. Second, they can behave in some way to induce others to change their inputs or outcomes. Next, they can behave in such a way to change their own inputs or outcomes. Fourth, they can select a different comparison referent. Last, they can quit their job.
The equity theory is included for the study because it is interesting to see how employees compare themselves to each other. These comparisons can lead to job turnover when some employees perceive not to be treated fairly. Important is that equity theory shows that beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes influence motivation. Employees are motivated powerfully to correct situations when there is a perception of inequity present. The theory that will be discussed next, is the expectancy theory, which is also a theory that includes the concept of perceptions from individuals.
2.2 Expectancy theory
Expectancy theory refers to a set of decision theories of work motivation and performance (Vroom, 1964 in Ferris, 1977). Perception plays a central role in expectancy theory because it emphasizes cognitive ability to anticipate likely consequences of behaviour (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). The most famous version of an expectancy theory is the theory depicted by Victor Vroom. Basically, Vroom (1964, in Isaac et al., 2001; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Kopelman, 1976; in Kopf, 1992; in Reinharth and Wahba, 1975; in Robbins, 2003; in Wahba and House, 1972) depicts that the strength of a tendency to act in a specific way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will have a certain consequence and on the attractiveness and value of that specific outcome to the individual. As said by Vroom (1964, in Kopf, 1992), the expectancy theory has two major assumptions. The first assumption is that individual persons have perceptions about the consequences that result from their behavioural actions, and the causal relationship among these outcomes. These perceptions, or beliefs, are referred to as either expectancies or instrumentalities (see also in Figure 2.1). The second assumption is that individual persons have affective reactions to certain outcomes. Affective
- 11 -
reactions reflect the valence (positive or negative value individuals place on results) of outcomes (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003).
According to the expectancy theory, individuals will be motivated to perform by two expectancies (Ferris, 1977; Harder, 1991; Isaac et al., 2001; Kopelman and Thompson, 1976). The first expectancy is the probability that the effort put forth will lead to the desired performance. The second expectancy (also referred to as instrumentality) is the probability that a particular performance will lead to certain preferred outcomes. When the probability of some effort will not be rewarded, the employee will not be highly motivated to perform a certain task. According to the theories that fall under the heading of expectancy theory, the socalled central expectancy core is that motivation is based on individuals viewpoints about the perceived probability that the effort will lead to specific performance (expectancy), multiplied by the probability that performance will lead to a certain reward (instrumentality), multiplied by the supposed value of the reward (valence) (Feldman, Reitz and Hilterman, 1976; Ferris, 1977; Isaac et al., 2001; Reinharth and Wahba, 1975). Figure 2.1, depicted by Fisher, Schoenfeldt and Shaw (1999) explains the expectancy theory in a graphical way.
Figure 2.1: Major elements of expectancy theory

Expectancy (probability that effort will lead to desired performance) Valence (value of outcome to individual)
Effort
Performance
Outcomes (pay, recognition, other rewards)
Instrumentality (probability that performance will produce desired outcomes)
Retrieved from Fisher, C. D., Schoenfeldt, L. F. and Shaw, J. B. (1999). Human resource management (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 609.
- 12 -
The expectancy theory is embedded in the study, as it is, like the equity theory, a widely used theory for comprehending employee motivation and satisfaction. Expectancy theory primarily relies upon extrinsic motivators to clarify causes for behaviours exhibited at work (Leonard, Beauvais and Scholl, 1999). External rewards are viewed as inducing motivational states that fuel behaviours, as opposed to intrinsic motivators, where behaviours are derived from internal forces such as enjoyment of the work itself because it is challenging, interesting, and so on (Isaac et al., 2001). It is interesting to see how expectancy theory influences motivation and satisfaction.
Kinicki and Kreitner (2003) show three ways how motivation is present in the expectancy theory. An employees expectation that a specific level of effort produces the intended performance goal influences (extrinsic) motivation. Moreover, the employees perceived chances of actually getting certain outcomes by accomplishing the organizational goals affect motivation as well. Last, employees are motivated to the extent that they value the outcomes received. Concerning extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, one can see that the focus is more on extrinsic motivation than on intrinsic motivation. Figure 2.1 focuses on extrinsic motivation and not on intrinsic motivation. This is backed up by Hennessey and Amabile (2005). Hennessey and Amabile (2005) depict that intrinsic motivation is the motivation to do something for the pure enjoyment of the work itself while extrinsic motivation is the motivation to achieve some external goal or to meet some constraint. Regarding the expectancy theory, one can see that the focus is on receiving and valuing rewards, which is mostly extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is still present here, but to a lesser extent than extrinsic motivation. The expectancy theory is a theory that is based on maximization of self-interests, wherein each employee tries to maximize his or her expected satisfaction (Robbins, 2003). One can see the principles of hedonism back in expectancy theories, since hedonistic individuals attempt to minimize their pain and to maximize their pleasure and wealth (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). With the expectancy theory, individuals try to maximize gains by minimizing costs. The following theory that will be discussed is the goal-setting theory.
2.3 Goal-setting theory
In its earliest formations, the goal-setting theory and the expectancy theory shared some common elements. Tolman (1932, in Klein, 1991) depicts that the expectancy of a goal and - 13 -
demand for a goal were the key determinants of impulse to certain action. The two theories show indeed some relationship with each other as Locke and Latham (2002) confirm. To go back to the goal-setting theory, Locke, Shaw, Saari and Latham (1981) defined a goal as what an individual attempts to accomplish; it is the object or aim of a certain action. The basic assumption of goal-setting is that goals are immediate regulators of human action (Locke et al., 1981). Evidence from the goal-setting research indicates that specific goals lead to increased performance and that difficult goals, when individuals have accepted them, result in higher performance than easy goals (Locke 1968, in Austin and Bobko, 1985; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Locke, 1978; in Locke, 2004; in Locke and Latham, 2002; in Locke et al., 1981; in Robbins, 2003). Next to that, they should be challenging but achievable (Locke et al., 1981). Following Kinicki and Kreitner (2003), goals should be SMART, which is an acronym that stands for specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and time bound.
Goal setting has four motivational mechanisms (Bryan and Locke, 1967; LaPorte and Nath, 1976; Locke and Latham, 2002; Locke et al., 1981). The first motivational mechanism is that goals that are personally meaningful and interesting tend to focus an individuals attention on what is important and what is relevant (Locke & Bryan, 1969 in Locke et al., 1981). The second mechanism is that goals have an energizing function. Simply said, higher goals lead to more effort than lower goals (Bryan and Locke, 1967). The third mechanism is that goals affect persistence. Persistence is the effort expended on a specific task over a certain amount of time (LaPorte and Nath, 1976). Normally, the more difficult a goal is to achieve, the higher the persistence. The last motivational mechanism holds that goals affect action indirectly by leading to the arousal, discovery and use of knowledge and strategies (Wood & Locke, 1990 in Locke and Latham, 2002).
Regarding the impact of goal-setting on intrinsic motivation, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1994) show some interesting evidence in their article. They explain, by means of a regression analysis, that the effect of performance or mastery-focused goals on intrinsic motivation depends on the degree of achievement orientation of an individual. Performance achievement goals focus on the demonstration of ability and define competence in a normative manner while mastery-focused goals focus on the development of skills and define competence in a self-referential way (Ames and Archer, 1988). When an individual is low on achievement orientation, he tries to avoid assessment and achievement settings and he is not oriented toward competence. Scoring high on achievement motivation means that this individual seeks - 14 -
for ability and skills assessment and likes competence performance (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1994; Trope, 1975). Such a person wants to be evaluated by others. Logically, the highest intrinsic motivation is displayed for individuals with low achievement orientation when offered with mastery-focused goals and for individuals high in achievement orientation when presented with task-specific standards with a performance focus (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1994). Elliot and Harackiewicz (1994) show with this research that goal setting can enhance interest in enjoyable activities for some individuals.
Goals are simultaneously an object or outcome to look for and a standard for satisfaction (Locke and Latham, 2002). When an individual wants to achieve a certain goal means that this individual will not be satisfied until he reaches that goal. Therefore, goals serve as the inflection point or reference standard for satisfaction versus dissatisfaction (Mento, Locke and Klein, 1992). Locke and Latham (2002) add to this that individuals that produce the most, those with difficult goals, are harder to satisfy. In this case, individuals that set high goals produce more as they are dissatisfied with less (Locke and Latham, 2002). Because this specific point where they become satisfied is much higher, they are motivated to produce more than those individuals with lower goals (Locke and Latham, 2002). This conclusion is can be seen in Figure 2.2 (depicted in Mento et al. (1992)).
Figure 2.2 shows undergraduate business students reporting four beneficial outcomes that they expected as a result of having an average grade average of A, B, or C. In this case, the grade average of A is the highest grade average a student could receive and the grade average of C is the lowest. Anticipated satisfaction (valence) showed an opposite direction as can be seen in Figure 2.2. The achievement valence curve represents the mean anticipated satisfaction score for each goal. Students with as goal an average grade of C showed the highest anticipated satisfaction while students with as goal an average grade of A showed the lowest anticipated satisfaction (Mento et al., 1992). With Figure 2.2, one can see that, on average, students with an average grade of C seem to be more satisfied than students with an average grade of A. This is because students aiming for an A are harder to satisfy than students that are more interested in just passing a course. Interesting for this research are the several linkages in Figure 2.2. Pride and competence are related to intrinsic motivation whereas school outcomes, job benefits, and career benefits are more related to extrinsic motivation. Some of those concepts, like pride, competence, and to a lesser extent job benefits and career benefits will be included in the study. This study will compare the constructs of - 15 -
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation between call centre agents and nurses to find out which group is more extrinsically motivation and which group is more intrinsically motivated.
Figure 2.2: Goal level, valence, instrumentality
Retrieved from Mento, A. J., Locke, E. A., & Klein, H. J. (1992). Relationship of goal level to valence and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), p. 401.
It is clear why the goal setting theory is included in the study. As mentioned above, goal setting has four motivational mechanisms, namely for direction, for effort, for persistence, and for strategy development (Locke et al., 1981). Moreover, goal setting has an impact on - 16 -
intrinsic motivation as shown by Elliot and Harackiewicz (1994) and Hirst (1988). Hirst (1988) conducted research where he linked goal setting to intrinsic motivation. He found that goal setting enhanced intrinsic motivation under conditions of low intrinsic task interest and that goal setting damaged intrinsic motivation under conditions of high intrinsic task interest. In other words, goal setting can enhance intrinsic motivation on tasks that are not interesting and decrease intrinsic motivation on tasks that are interesting. Last but not least, goal setting also influences satisfaction, as depicted above by Locke and Latham (2002) and Mento et al. (1992). The fourth motivational theory that will be dealt with is the attribution theory.
2.4 Attribution theory
Regarding the attribution theories, Fritz Heider is considered the founder or pioneer. Attribution theory is based on the premise that people attempt to infer causes for observed behaviour by other individuals and themselves (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; Robbins, 2003). In other words, according to the attribution theory, people interpret behaviour in terms of its causes and these interpretations play a significant role in determining reactions to that specific behaviour (Kelley, 1973; Kelley and Michela, 1980).
Attribution theory suggests that when individuals look at the behaviour of others, they try to determine whether this behaviour was internally or externally triggered (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; Robbins, 2003). Individuals try to answer questions to why? something occurs (Weiner, 1979). Internal factors, like ability and skills, are situated within a person and believed to be under the personal control of that person while external factors are situated outside a person in the environment (Robbins, 2003). A simple example can clarify this. When a person is late for school, the tutor can either think that his tardiness is due to internal (controllable) factors or external (non-controllable) factors. In this case, a possible internal factor could be that he overslept because he was too lazy to come out of his bed and a possible external factor could be that the public transport system was failing.
Kelley (1973) and Kelley and Michela (1980) put forward that individuals make causal attributions after collecting information concerning three dimensions of behaviour. The first is consensus, which involves a comparison of a persons behaviour with that of his peers. The consensus is higher when more individuals within a certain group behave the same way. The
- 17 -
second dimension is distinctiveness, which is determined by weighing an individuals behaviour on one specific task against his behaviour on other tasks. In other words, whether or not his behaviour is the same in different situations. The third and last dimension is consistency. Consistency answers the question whether an individual behaves the same way over time. Kelley (1967, in Kaplan et al., 1986) also mentions consistency over modality, which means that a certain situation can occur through various modalities (like seeing, hearing, feeling and so on). Kelley (1973) theorized that individuals attribute behaviour to internal causes when the observed behaviour is characterized by low consensus, low distinctiveness, and high consistency. Externally caused behaviour is characterized by high consensus, high distinctiveness, and low consistency. This can be clarified with an example where a tutor evaluates the tardiness of a certain student. When a tutor notices that most of his students are late (high consensus), and he knows that the students behaviour is normally very strict and motivated in tutorial meetings and that this tardiness comes as a surprise (high distinctiveness), and he realises that the student has never been late during this course and previous courses (low consistency), the tutor will attribute the students tardiness to external factors, like a failure in the public transport system. When a tutor sees that the specific student is the only one that is not present (low consensus), and that the student gives a sloppy experience in tutorial meetings and in general (low distinctiveness), and that the student has been late a couple of times (high consistency), he will attribute the students behaviour to internal causes, like being too lazy to get out of his bed.
Interesting is that individuals, when something goes wrong, tend to blame external factors, but, when it goes well, contribute this to internal factors (D. T. Miller, 1976; Snyder, Stephan and Rosenfield, 1976; Wortman, Costanzo and Witt, 1973). According to Heider (1944, in Schlenker and Miller, 1977), there is some kind of self-serving motivation bias present to protect self-esteem. Miller and Ross (1975) were the first ones to really suggest this bias as it is known today. Bradley (1978) tested successfully that persons tend to accept responsibility for behavioural actions with a positive outcome but tend to deny responsibility when behavioural actions have a negative outcome. Another error that distorts an individuals interpretation of observed behaviour is the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977 in Kahle, 1980). This fundamental attribution error by Ross (1977, in Kahle, 1980) refers to a situation where individuals underattribute importance to situational variables. A good example is that a coach of a team contributed the bad performance of his team to bad teamwork rather than that the other team just performed better. - 18 -
Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973) show an interesting link of attribution theory and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They tested the consequences of shifting an individuals perception on his own motivation from being intrinsically motivated to being extrinsically motivated by adding a reward (external motivator) to a situation where one was intrinsically motivated. The results show that individuals in the expected-award condition would show less subsequent intrinsic interest in the target activity than individuals in the unexpected-award condition and the no-award-condition. In other words, including an external reward to an activity that was previously based on pure interest makes people less intrinsically motivated to do that activity. This is due to the shift of the locus of control. The locus of control shifts from intrinsic to extrinsic and therefore there is a decrease in intrinsic motivation. The influence of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation will be extensively discussed in the chapter 3 on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
The attribution theory is included in the study because it is interesting to find out how employees make causal attributions in the work environment. An employees attribution for his own performance can have severe impact on subsequent motivation, performance, and satisfaction (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). Employees will leave the job, develop lower expectations for the future, and experience decreased self-esteems and harmed egos when they attribute failure to a lack of skills and ability (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). Fortunately, employees can be attributionally trained in order to improve motivation, persistence, and performance (Frsterling, 1985). The study could also be used to find out whether employees at certain jobs received such training in order to help them deal with certain drawbacks. Moreover, it would be interesting to see whether persons that chose a certain profession (either because they think this was challenging, interesting, and so on, or because they needed the money) would stay at the same job even if they received less salary. The next theory that will be elaborated is theory X and Y by McGregor.
2.5 Theory X and Y
Douglas McGregor is the creator of theory X and Y. In 1960, he wrote his famous book The human side of enterprise, in which he worked out theory X and Y. He formulated two contrasting views about human nature (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). Both views have some - 19 -
critical assumptions concerning employees at work. According to theory X, employees dislike work and will avoid it whenever they can, employees must be threatened with punishment to make them work, they need and want direction when they are working, employees have little or no ambition, and they are only interested in security (McGregor, 1960 in Burns, 1967; in Carson, 2005; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Robbins, 2003; in Schein, 1975). These assumptions are, as can be seen above, rather pessimistic in how managers and supervisors saw their employees.
McGregors concern was the development of the individual employee in the work environment. As said by Meeker (1982), it is McGregor, with his assumptions in theory Y, who provided intellectual foundations that were different from the limited views on human behaviour underlying theory X and the principles of classical economical/organization theory. Theory Y holds that work is a natural activity, that employees are capable of self-direction and self-control when they are committed to organizational goals, that employees become committed if they are appropriately rewarded, that employees can learn to seek responsibility, and that an employee can be creative (McGregor, 1960 in Burns, 1967; in Carson, 2005; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Meeker, 1982; in Robbins, 2003; in Schein, 1975).
One can see that McGregor is influenced by the work of Abraham Maslow with his hierarchy of needs theory (Carson, 2005; Meeker, 1982). Regarding the pyramid of Maslow, theory X assumes that lower-order needs dominate individuals while theory Y can be traced back to the higher-order needs (Robbins, 2003). However, there is a significant difference regarding the end result between the two (Meeker, 1982). As an individual moves through Maslows pyramid when he satisfies each layer of needs (physiological, safety, social, esteem and at the top self-actualization) the satisfying conclusion is self-actualisation or personal growth. For McGregor, this satisfaction merely serves the cause of commitment to organizational objectives. Moreover, for McGregor, this satisfaction is a means of acquiring control instead of the traditional punishments associated with hierarchical control (Meeker, 1982).
Theory X and Y are included in the study for the interesting viewpoints that managers and supervisors might have about their employees. It would be fascinating to see how employees think that they are being looked at by their managers. A theory X manager would see the employees from a negative angle. Employees would be lazy, not creative, will avoid responsibilities, have little ambition and the only way to make them work is to threaten them - 20 -
with punishments to achieve desired goals (McGregor, 1960 in Burns, 1967; in Carson, 2005; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Meeker, 1982; in Robbins, 2003; in Schein, 1975). In contrast with theory X, theory Y assumes that individuals want to work, will seek responsibility, will exercise self-direction and self-control if they are committed to organizational goals, and that the satisfaction of doing well at work is a powerful motivation on itself (McGregor, 1960 in Burns, 1967; in Carson, 2005; in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; in Meeker, 1982; in Robbins, 2003; in Schein, 1975). Another reason why theory X and Y are included in the study is the link to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Theory X is related more to extrinsic motivation because of the involvement of punishments while theory Y relates to intrinsic motivation since employees will become satisfied when they perform well at work. The following theory that will be put forward is the cognitive dissonance theory.
2.6 Cognitive dissonance theory
Fifty years ago, Leon Festinger developed a theory of cognitive dissonance, which had a large impact on the field of social psychology. The cognitive dissonance theory depicts that dissonance is a psychological state of tension, which individuals are motivated to decrease because of the discomfort it brings (Festinger, 1957 in Robbins, 2003). Cognitive dissonance occurs when there are inconsistencies between two or more attitudes of an individual or between an individuals behaviour and attitudes (Festinger, 1957 in Robbins, 2003). If one cognitive element follows logically from the other, they are said to be consonant to each other (Oshikawa, 1969).
The amount of dissonance is a function of the ratio of dissonant to total relevant relations, with each relation weighted for its importance to the person (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). Dissonance can be reduced in several ways by motivating an individual to reduce the tension, namely by changing ones behaviour, by concluding that the dissonant behaviour is not so important after all, by changing ones attitudes, and by sorting out more consonant elements to outweigh the dissonant ones (Oshikawa, 1969; Robbins, 2003). Logically, the more disagreeable the induced behaviour, the greater the extent of dissonance (Allyn and Festinger, 1961; Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). There are several moderating factors influencing the degree to which individuals are motivated to reduce dissonance (Robbins, 2003). When the problems causing the dissonance are of minimal importance, when a person thinks that the
- 21 -
dissonance is externally imposed and is substantially uncontrollable, or if rewards are large enough to offset the dissonance, the person will not feel large tension to decrease the dissonance (Robbins, 2003).
Concerning the study, the cognitive dissonance theory is included because it can help to predict the propensity to engage in both attitude and behavioural change (Robbins, 2003). The attribution theory influenced the cognitive dissonance theory. One similarity is that certain attributions to events can change an individuals behaviour. If employees are asked to do things at work (external causes) that go against their personal attitudes, they will tend to modify their attitudes with the aim of making it compatible with the cognition of what they must say or do. Moreover, the greater the dissonance, the greater the pressures to decrease the dissonance. Naturally, the moderating variables influencing the degree to which individuals are motivated to reduce dissonance, whether the individual has an influence over the choice, and the possible provision of rewards play a significant role here. Interesting to see is whether employees have engaged for example in non-ethical behaviour or have seen things at work they do not agree with. Cognitive dissonance can be a very powerful motivator and when an organization is going through an immense change process, the cognitive dissonance theory can be used to change the minds of the employees. This can be done by proving that the new ideas, which are contradicting to the old ideas, are better, faster, more efficient, and so on. Another theory that will be coped with is the investment model.
2.7 Investment model
The original investment model is based on some principles of the interdependence theory (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 in Rusbult and Farrell, 1983) and uses some aspects of the traditional exchange theory (Blau, 1964 in Rusbult and Farrell, 1983; Homans, 1961 in Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Categorized as a theory of motivation, the investment model suggests that job satisfaction, the degree to which an individual evaluates his or her job, should be greater to the extent that the job offers high rewards and low costs (Rusbult and Farrell, 1983; Rusbult et al., 1986). When the satisfaction is lower than a certain point, the motivation of a person to continue at his job is decreasing as well. This investment model has been applied to romantic relationships as well (Drigotas, Safstrom and Gentilia, 1999; Rusbult, 1983). For romantic relationships, the investment model argues that persons should
- 22 -
be more satisfied (and more motivated) with a relationship to the extent that they continue to provide high rewards and low costs, and exceed their general expectations, or comparison level. In other words, persons are satisfied when they have a lot in common with their partner and share some interests with each other (high rewards), when they rarely have disputes (low costs) with each other, and when they expect little from their romantic involvements more generally (low comparison level), then they should be relatively satisfied with their relationship. Although this may sound strange, the model has even been applied for explaining infidelity and destructive behaviour within relationships (Drigotas et al., 1999; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik and Lipkus, 1991).
The investment model distinguishes four basic model parameters, namely job costs, job rewards, alternatives, and investments, which are presumed to affect job turnover through their effects on job attitudes (Dam, 2005). To be more precise, the model embraces that a persons evaluation of his present job consists of constant personal reward-cost analyses, in which the reward and cost values of various job attributes are weighted and combined into an overall job value (Dam, 2005). This specific personal job value (which changes over time as well) influences the individuals satisfaction at work (Dam, 2005). Logically, this satisfaction can influence whether this person will stay at his job or leave. Next to satisfaction, there are two more factors influencing job commitment as depicted by Dam (2005). These are the individuals previous investments in the job (resources that are invested in the relationship) and the employees job alternatives. Concerning previous investments in the job, one could think of emigration to another city or country and number of years working for the company, and for an employees job alternatives, one could imagine leaving the company for a competitor.
The investment model shows a nice viewpoint regarding motivation and satisfaction of employees. Seemingly related to equity theory and adopting some elements from the interdependence and traditional exchange theories, the model shows a link to satisfaction that is interesting for the study. Employees, who are satisfied with their jobs, will less likely rotate jobs. Moreover, the extended investment model, as depicted by Dam (2005), might help to improve employees attitudes towards organizational change, hereby showing a relation with the cognitive dissonance theory and the expectancy theory. The link between those theories is, in this case, when the difference between the actual or perceived and the desired situation is negative, the employee will be dissatisfied. Pertaining to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, it - 23 -
would be interesting to see whether these relationships will be represented in this study. The last motivational theory that will be discussed here is the cognitive evaluation theory.
2.8 Cognitive evaluation theory
The cognitive evaluation theory, as part of the self-determination theory, specifies factors in social contexts that cause variability in intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Cognitive evaluation theory predicted at first that monetary rewards would undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971). Later on, Deci, Cascio and Krusell (1975) mentioned that expected rewards would lead to a larger decrease in intrinsic motivation than unexpected rewards would. Deci et al. (1975) depict that if a person expects a reward while he is doing the activity, then it is very likely that he perceives that he is doing the activity for the reward. On the other hand, if the person does not expect to receive the reward, it is less likely that he realises that the reason he is doing the activity to get the extrinsic reward (Deci et al., 1975). However, it is possible that when he gets unexpected rewards the individual relates this to actual working for rewards. Therefore, expected and unexpected rewards could lower intrinsic motivation, but the unexpected reward would decrease it the least and would be less likely to do so (Deci et al., 1975).
According to Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999), the primary negative effect of rewards is that they have the tendency to hinder self-regulation. This holds that rewards undermine individuals taking responsibility for motivating or regulating themselves (Deci et al., 1999). Deci et al. (1999) concur with Deci (1971) that unexpected rewards may be a way for showing appreciation without undermining intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, when rewards are used to signify competence there might be individuals that do not receive the full amount due to the fact that they did not reach their targets (this is related to extrinsic motivation because they do not perform up to the expected standards), this may be experienced as negative feedback about their performance and is highly damaging for intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). From 1985 on, Deci and Ryan (1985) presented the cognitive evaluation theory as one of the four mini-theories within the self-determination theory with as main goal to specify factors that explain variability in intrinsic motivation. The other subtheories are the organismic integration theory (which will be discussed briefly in chapter 3 on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation), the causality integration theory and the basic
- 24 -
needs theory (the last two will not be discussed in this paper). The cognitive evaluation theory is framed in terms of social and environmental factors that either enhance or decrease intrinsic motivation.
There are basically three needs that can enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000b). The first need is the so-called social-contextual factors that can lead to feelings of competence, like positive feedback, optimal challenges, freedom from demeaning evaluations, excellent communications, and non-monetary rewards. The critical issues of when and how to use rewards most effectively without decreasing intrinsic motivation have been discussed in the previous paragraph. Second, feelings of competence will not enhance intrinsic motivation unless combined with a sense of autonomy. Individuals must experience their behaviour to be self-determined. Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman and Ryan (1981) show that individuals are more satisfied and more intrinsically motivated in an environment that is not based on control but based on autonomy. If companies rely heavily on controlling behaviour by the use of rewards (in the wrong way), they may be having considerable negative long-term effects (Deci et al., 1999). The last need is that of relatedness or security. Although intrinsic motivation can occur just as good in isolation, a secure relational support appears to be important for the expression of intrinsic motivation (Anderson, Manoogian and Reznick, 1976; Ryan and Deci, 2000b; Ryan and Grolnick, 1986). In other words, when individuals feel comfortable and appreciated by the people that surround them, they seem to portray a higher degree of intrinsic motivation. To give an example, Ryan and Grolnick (1986) showed that students that perceived their teachers as cold and uncaring showed less intrinsic motivation than students that perceived their teachers as warm and caring. Furthermore, Anderson et al. (1976) depicted that when children worked on something they liked in the presence of a stranger who did not respond to their actions, the intrinsic motivation decreased significantly.
Deci (1972) suggests that when one is interested in enhancing intrinsic motivation in employees or individuals in general, he should not concentrate on external control systems such as monetary rewards, but instead he should focus on making work intrinsically interesting for the employees. The link to the equity theory is also fascinating in this case. When a person would get much more salary out of the blue (for the same work), he would get feelings on inequity (Deci, 1972). However, this increase of rewards would also lead to being more dependent on the money, which of course leads to a reduction of intrinsic motivation - 25 -
(Deci, 1972). Furthermore, research revealed that not only tangible rewards but also deadlines, directives, pressured evaluations, threats, and imposed goals decrease intrinsic motivation since they conduce toward an external perceived locus of causality (Deci and Ryan, 1985). On the contrary, acknowledgment of feelings, opportunities for self-direction, and choice were found to improve intrinsic motivation for the reason that they allow individuals a greater feeling of autonomy (Deci and Ryan, 1985). These relations to enhancing or decreasing intrinsic motivation, as depicted above, can be applied to questions in this paper.
- 26 -
Chapter 3: Job satisfaction
This chapter will deal with the several aspects of job satisfaction. First, the concept of job satisfaction will be defined and discussed. Second, some determinants of job satisfaction are depicted, followed by five principal models of job satisfaction that identify its causes. Last, the relationships of job satisfaction (categorized as consequences of job satisfaction) with other constructs are discussed. The two relevant environments for this research, namely the call centre environment and the nursing environment, are applied to each relationship as well.
3.1 Job satisfaction defined
There are as many definitions of job satisfaction available as there are authors. Job satisfaction is an emotional or affective response to several aspects of an employees work situation, and has been depicted as a positive emotional reaction resulting from appraisal of an employees job (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). Job satisfaction includes various aspects of ones job and is therefore some kind of total sum of various components. This means that a person can be reasonably satisfied with one part of his job but dissatisfied with another part. An employee can like his salary and his colleagues but at the same time he can be annoyed by his direct superior, the distance to work, and so on. Robbins (2003) adds to this that an individual who is dissatisfied with his current work situation holds negative thoughts about his job while an individual who is satisfied with his current work situation holds positive thoughts about his or her job. In the end, if the negative aspects of ones job outweigh the positive aspects of ones job, the logical consequence is that the employee will search for a better job. Sharma and Jyoti (2006) mention that job satisfaction is a function of the degree to which an employees needs can be satisfied. Put into practice, job satisfaction is the difference between what there is now and what there should be. To clarify this, an employee will be satisfied when current reality equals expectations.
3.2 Determinants and causes of job satisfaction
The author noticed a difference in categorization of two authors regarding causes or determinants of job satisfaction. The two different viewpoints should be the same but are
- 27 -
Job satisfaction
different. According to Robbins (2003), there are four primary factors that determine job satisfaction. The first determinant is equitable rewards, which refers to the pay and promotion systems that employees perceive as fair and in line with their expectations (related to the equity theory). When employees perceive their promotion and pay systems to be fair and to be based upon pay standards and individual skill levels, they are most likely to experience a feeling of satisfaction. The second determinant is supportive working conditions. Employees do not prefer to work in work environments that are dangerous but in work environments that are comfortable and safe. Moreover, many employees prefer to work as close to home as possible and with adequate tools to successfully complete their tasks. Next determinant is to have mentally challenging work. Jobs that are boring, dull, and have little challenge often create boredom with employees. Contrasting, jobs that are too challenging and demanding often create feelings of failure and frustration. Employees like jobs that can give them opportunities where they can use their capabilities, knowledge, and skills and jobs that offer a variety of tasks, freedom, and feedback. The last determinant is supportive colleagues. For many employees, social interactions at work are a critical factor in job satisfaction. Therefore, supportive and friendly colleagues often lead to higher job satisfaction.
Another categorization has been done by Kinicki and Kreitner (2003). There are five principal models of job satisfaction that identify its causes (Brief, 1998 in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). The first category of models are the so-called discrepancy models. The models situated in this category suggest that (job) satisfaction is a result of met expectations. According to Kinicki and Kreitner (2003), met expectations embody the difference between what an employee in fact receives and what the employee expects to get from his job. An employee will be dissatisfied when his personal expectations are greater than what he has received from his job. On the contrary, an employee will be satisfied when his expectations are exceeded by what he actually receives. Every employee has different expectations with respect to rewards and payoffs in certain work situations (Porter and Steers, 1973). According to Porter and Steers (1973), the definition of met expectations depicts that people compare their pre-entry expectations to their post-entry perceptions. Logically, this requires a within-person comparison on two different points in time. Most definitions on met expectations are variances on the definition given by Porter and Steers (1973) (Wanous, Poland, Premack and Davis, 1992). Wanous et al. (1992) show, by means of a meta-analysis of several studies, that met expectations are significant correlated to job satisfaction. This is the reason why many
- 28 -
Job satisfaction
companies use surveys to find out what the expectations and perceptions are of their employees (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003).
The second category of models are related to need fulfillment. Kinicki and Kreitner (2003) depict that these models suggest that job satisfaction is determined to the degree that the characteristics of a certain job allow an employee to fulfill his or her needs. The model suggests that individuals have stable, basic, and relatively unchanging and identifiable attributes, including needs and personality (Argyris, 1957 in Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977). The model also suggests that jobs have a relative stable set of characteristics that are interesting to these needs of the employees (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977). The assumption is made that when the characteristics of a certain job are congruent with the needs an individual possesses, the employee is satisfied. A further assumption of this model is that when the characteristics of the job meet the needs of that individual, the employee will be more motivated to work.
The third category of models are the models situated in the value attainment category. The basic idea behind job satisfaction is that satisfaction results from the perception that a job can enable the fulfillment of an individuals personal work values (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). Recent research on value attainment proposes that the attainment of general values at work can have an impact on a number of other relevant outcomes, including job satisfaction and job performance (George and Jones, 1996). According to George and Jones (1996), value attainment is related to the degree that work and variables at work can help an employee to attain life values. Moreover, they mention that life and work values help to trigger behavior through standards that employees use to assess their actions and the results of those actions in life and at work. Locke (1976, in Perrew, Hochwarter and Kiewitz, 1999) depicts that comparing an employees current situation to the personal values of that employee creates attitudes such as job satisfaction. Locke (1976, in Perrew et al., 1999) explains that the situational factors at work could be perceived more satisfactorily when the job enables employees to attain their values. If those values are not attained, dissatisfaction will occur. Therefore, it is important for companies to make sure that employees feel satisfied by organizing the work environment in order to attain employees values.
Perrew et al. (1999) give an interesting figure that clarifies the relationship between value attainment and job satisfaction. Figure 3.1 shows the model of the hypothesized effects of the mediating effects of value attainment in the relationship between family-work conflicts and - 29 -
Job satisfaction
job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Figure 3.1 shows that both work interference with family and family interference with work have a direct negative relationship with both job and life satisfaction. The results from Perrew et al. (1999) show that value attainment is a significant mediating variable between family-work conflicts and job and life satisfaction. The strength of this negative relationship was decreased by value attainment. This research shows that environmental factors influence the relationship between job and personal values.
Figure 3.1: Improved version of the conceptual model of the hypothesized mediating effects of value attainment in the relationship between work-family conflict and job life satisfaction.
(Adams, King, and King, 1996; Thomas and Ganster, 1995)
Work interference with family Job satisfaction +
+
(Adams et al., 1996; Wiley, 1987)
Value attainment + Family interference with work Life satisfaction
(Adams et al., 1996; Duxbury and Higgins, 1991)
(Perrew et al., 1999)
Retrieved from Perrew, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A. and Kiewitz, C. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work-family conflict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4 (4), p. 320.
The improvements made to this figure are the (added) dotted lines that indicate a direct relationship between the constructs as well. Between brackets are the authors that have written about these relationships.
- 30 -
Job satisfaction
The next category is the model that falls under the heading of equity. In this model, satisfaction is a function of how an employee perceives to be treated at work (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). One can see that this model is referred to as the equity theory as discussed in the chapter on motivational theories. An employee reflects on how much he has put in his job against how much he receives and compares this to other employees from the company. When an employee thinks that his input-output ratio is equal to others, he has the impression that he has been treated fairly (Cosier and Dalton, 1983). This feeling of being treated fairly is a feeling of satisfaction. Witt and Nye (1992) show, by means of a meta-analysis, that employees perceived fairness is significantly related to job satisfaction. Furthermore, the results of this study show that there is no difference between men and women with regard to the relationship between perceived fairness and job satisfaction.
The last category are the dispositional or genetic components. This model centres around the belief that job satisfaction is for some part a function of both genetic factors and personal traits (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). Arvey, Bouchard, Segal and Abraham (1989) show with their study of monozygotic twins that at least some part of job satisfaction can be attributed to genetic components. Arvey et al. (1989) even prove that monozygotic twins try to a find a job in the same environment with the same characteristics. Moreover, genetic components influence subjective well-being (Diener and Diener, 1996). This is why most people report that they are happy in general, even when they are situated in disadvantaged groups such as poor people, handicapped people and unemployed people. Lykken and Tellegen (1996) add that the variance in adult happiness is about equally determined by effects of experiences special for a single individual and by genetic components.
3.3 Correlations of job satisfaction with other variables
3.3.1 Job involvement
Job satisfaction has a number of relationships with other constructs in the organizational behaviour variables. Kinicki and Kreitner (2003) categorize these variables as consequences of job satisfaction. Next to the classification of Kinicki and Kreitner (2003), the literature will be scanned for correlations between the variables). The first variable where job satisfaction is correlated with is job involvement. Job involvement refers to the degree that employees
- 31 -
Job satisfaction
psychologically identify themselves with their job, or to the extent of the importance of the job in an employees self-image (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965 in Chiu and Tsai, 2006). Interesting is that Lodahl and Kejner (1965, in Kanungo, 1979) give another definition on job involvement. They depict that job involvement is the degree to which an individuals performance at work has an influence on his or her self-esteem. Strangely, they do not make any attempt to show how and if the two definitions are related to another and they used the two definitions whenever it suited them (Kanungo, 1979). According to Kanungo (1979), job involvement is looked upon as a generalized cognitive state of psychological identification with the job insofar as the job is supposed to have the potentiality to please an individuals expectations and prominent needs. Weissenberg and Gruenfeld (1968) investigated the relationship between job satisfaction and several job factors and job involvement. They concluded that higher job involvement is significant positively correlated with job-content or motivators (Herzberg, 1966 in Kanungo, 1979) like independence, responsibility, achievement and so on. Brown (1996) conducted a meta-analysis that investigated the relationships of job involvement with other organizational-related constructs. He found that job involvement was strongly correlated to work satisfaction and moderately correlated to overall job satisfaction (including work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, co-worker satisfaction and so on). Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim and Carson (2002) conducted a meta-analysis and investigated, among other relationships, the relationship between job satisfaction and job involvement. Kinicki et al. (2002) found a moderate to strong relationship between the two variables.
Strangely, Knoop (1995) found that the relationship between job satisfaction and involvement was weak and he retrieved this conclusion from a sample of nurses. According to him, this may be due to the nature of work causing employees to feel more obligated than satisfied in what they do. In contrast, Rose and Wright (2005) found a moderately strong relationship between involvement and satisfaction in call centres and they mention that employees lacked a feeling of commitment and involvement from their supervisors and managers regarding their work. Workman and Bommer (2004) and Workman (2003) conducted experiments in computer technological call centres and found that when processes were used that increased involvement of their employees, this would lead to higher job satisfaction. This is of course relevant to organizations, because employees that are involved to the organization tend to have a higher job satisfaction.
- 32 -
Job satisfaction
3.3.2 Organizational citizenship behaviour
The next variable that is correlated to job satisfaction is organizational citizenship behaviour. Organizational citizenship behaviour refers to those actions and behaviours that go beyond the call of duty and standardized work (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). There are a number of gestures that can fall under the heading of organizational citizenship behaviour. These are making suggestions for improvements at work, training new employees and colleagues outside work hours, making constructive statements about the department and the firm in general, care for organizational property and belongings of colleagues, attendance and punctuality well beyond standard and enforceable levels, expression of personal interests in the work and private life of peers, subordinates and supervisors, keeping the work floor clean, and so forth (Organ, 1990). Organ (1990) refers to organizational citizenship behaviour as that behaviour by an individual employee that is discretionary and not directly rewarded by the formal reward system in a company, but that behaviour that improves the effective functioning of the company. Moreover, this behaviour is not part of the job description but merely occurs because of the personal choice of an individual employee. Organ and Ryan (1995) conducted a meta-analysis covering over 55 studies investigating the attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour and found that there is a significant relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction. This is interesting for this research since organizational citizenship behaviour shows similar characteristics as intrinsic motivation (and the relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction is part of the central aim of this paper). In addition, this is attention-grabbing for companies since employees become more satisfied with their jobs when they get a chance to exhibit behaviours that are beyond normal work standards.
Interesting is that Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) show that organizational citizenship behaviours displayed by employees were determined more by skills of their leaders and the situational factors of the work environment than by the personal characteristics of an employee. This means that companies can enhance this organizational citizenship behaviour by embedding this in their cultures. Offering security to employees, for example by means of long-term contracts, can create some organizational citizenship behaviour as well (Van Dyne and Ang, 1998). Therefore, managers should create this feeling of attachment to the company in order to increase this type of behaviour.
- 33 -
Job satisfaction
Regarding call centres and the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour, there is only one study that showed a direct and significant correlation between the two variables. Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, Wecking and Moltzen (2006) conducted 2 studies and found a significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour. Concerning nursing, only Cohen and Kol (2004) conducted a research on organizational citizenship behaviour with nurses. However, the research did not focus on satisfaction and no direct or indirect relationship with organizational citizenship behaviour was found. Wegge et al (2006) used the study of Van Dyne and Ang (1998) for the call centre industry and found that part-time employees with a higher organizational identification showed more organizational citizenship behaviour than part-time employees with a lower organizational identification.
3.3.3 Organizational commitment
The third variable that will be discussed is organizational commitment, which is related to organizational citizenship behaviour and involvement as well. According to Kinicki and Kreitner (2003), organizational commitment refers to the degree that an employee identifies with the company where he is working at and is committed to the goals of the company. Another definition of commitment is provided by Rayton (2006), who defines commitment as the degree to which an individual feels committed to a company. Committed employees feel a big sense of loyalty to the organization, feel very personally defensive when the good functioning of the organization is threatened and they stay at the same company even when there are interesting opportunities to leave the company for a competitor (Fang, 2001). Although there are many differences in the literature available between psychological and organizational researchers on the exact relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, it is now generally accepted that global job satisfaction is one of the most prominent predictors of organizational commitment (Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1996; Mueller and Price, 1990; Staw, Sutton and Pelled, 1994; Yoon and Thye, 2002). This is backed up by the meta-analysis conducted by Tett and Meyer (1993), who found a strong positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Logically, supervisors and managers need to focus on satisfying employees in order to make them more committed. This can be done by giving the employee more control over his job and giving him some autonomy (Yoon and Thye, 2002). Another meta-analysis conducted by Kinicki et
- 34 -
Job satisfaction
al. (2002) come to the same conclusion, namely that organizational commitment and job satisfaction are strongly positive correlated.
Knoop (1995) conducted a research with a sample of nurses to investigate the relationship of satisfaction and commitment and found that this relationship was moderately high. This is backed up by DeGroot, Burke and George (1998, in McNeese-Smith, 2001) and Acorn, Ratner and Crawford (1997, in McNeese-Smith, 2001). Patient care plays an important positive mediating role in the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (McNeese-Smith, 1999). Commitment is a big problem in call centres when employees are driven too hard with the quantitative output measurements that are implemented in most call centres (Taylor and Bain, 1999). Furthermore, too much control has a negative effect on commitment (and indirectly on satisfaction) of call centre employees.
Figure 3.2: Turnover model as manifest for call centre representatives
Retrieved from Zhong, M., Siong, B., Mellor, D., Moore, K. A. and Firth, L. (2006). Predicting intention to quit in the call centre industry: Does the retail model fit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3), p. 237.
- 35 -
Job satisfaction
Zhong, Siong, Mellor, Moore and Firth (2006) applied a model of turnover to the call centre industry. The model they used in their research summarizes their findings of a turnover model applied to the call centre environment represented here as Figure 3.2. They suggest that call centre environments are highly stressful environments and the so-called stressors (like role ambiguity, work overload, and work-family conflicts) play a more important role in call centres than in other industries investigated with the turnover model. Relevant for the relationship of job satisfaction and organizational and job commitment, one can see that the two are positively (and significant) correlated to each other. The arrow between job satisfaction and job commitment shows .42, indicating a significant relationship. Moreover, job satisfaction is both direct and indirect (through the variable of job commitment) negatively related to intention to quit. In other words, employees that are satisfied with their jobs have a lower tendency to leave the organization for a competitor or a different type of job.
3.3.4 Turnover
Another relevant variable that is correlated with job satisfaction is turnover. Satisfaction and commitment have been reported to be negatively related to turnover while at the same time be positively correlated to another (Bluedorn, 1982; Hollenbeck and Williams, 1986). Turnover is a very important issue to managers and companies in general because it costs many financial and non-financial resources, like knowledge. Employee turnover is the ratio of employees that are leaving the company compared to the average number of total employees working at that company (Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner, 2000). According to Kinicki and Kreitner (2003), turnover is very important to any organization not only because it costs a lot of money but also because it disrupts continuity, which is crucial for the success of an organization. Turnover has more disadvantages than just a higher financial burden. It has negative effects on employee continuity, organizational stability, and organizational productivity (Zhong et al., 2006). Griffeth et al. (2000) conducted a meta-analysis on turnover and found that that there is a moderate negative relationship between job satisfaction and job turnover. Zhong et al. (2006) actually found a strong negative correlation between job satisfaction and intention to quit. According to Alexander, Lichtenstein, Oh and Ullman (1998, in Zhong et al., 2006), intention to quit is good predictor of turnover, confirming that there is at least a moderate (in)direct link between job satisfaction and turnover.
- 36 -
Job satisfaction
Nursing turnover has been a problem for decades, especially with the shortages in the health care industry (Price and Mueller, 1981). This high turnover rate of nurses has severe negative problems concerning the efficiency of the hospitals (Alexander, Bloom and Nuchols, 1994). Price and Mueller (1981) conducted a research among nurses investigating several relationships with job satisfaction. They found that job satisfaction only influenced job turnover very weakly, but played an important mediating role between turnover and other determinants, like organizational commitment. Job satisfaction could have both a positive and a negative effect on the relationships between job turnover and other constructs. ArmstrongStassen and Cameron (2003) proposed that nurses need a stable work environment and found that hospital downsizing had a severe negative effect on nurses job satisfaction and turnover.
Turnover is costing the call centre industry billions of dollars (Bain et al., 2002; , "Employee turnover costing U.S. industry billions", 2000; Hillmer, Hillmer and McRoberts, 2004; King, 2003; Lewig and Dollard, 2003; Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004; Wallace et al., 2000; Zhong et al., 2006). Stuller (1999, in Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004) even mentioned that the average turnover rate for call centres of over 30 percent. James (1998, in Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004) estimates that the high turnover rate in the call centre industry costs the call centres 10,000 dollars per employee. Van Dyne and Ang (1998) mention that, especially for organizations with a high turnover rate, offering employees a long term/full time contract and therefore some security and control can create some organizational citizenship behaviour. This can result in decreasing the turnover rates of organizations. Another interesting point regarding the relationship between job satisfaction and intention to quit/turnover is offered by Babin and Boles (1998), who conducted a research among employee behaviour in the service industry. They came to the conclusion that gender plays an important moderating role in this relationship. Babin and Boles (1998) found that there is a stronger relationship between job satisfaction and intention to quit (which is directly related to turnover) for men than for women. When looking at job satisfaction in general when environmental conditions are stable, men tend to be more satisfied with their jobs that women (Savery, 1989).
3.3.5 Absenteeism
The fifth variable that is correlated to job satisfaction is absenteeism. Like turnover, absenteeism is a costly business and organizations will try anything to reduce it. Absenteeism
- 37 -
Job satisfaction
is referred to as unscheduled employee absences from the job ("Tackling absenteeism in the workplace", 2006). There are several disadvantages that come from absenteeism of employees. These are inability to provide services, low morale will result in lower productivity, additional staff hours or overtime to make up for the hours lost, reduction in the range or standard or services, an increase in hours of supervisors that have to deal with absent employees, and an increase in demands on the organizations sick pay system (Haswell, 2003; , "Tackling absenteeism in the workplace", 2006). Many causes of absenteeism are legitimate like personal illness, pregnancy, or death in the family but some causes are related to bad work environment or simply not being committed to ones work (Haswell, 2003). Some have almost funny causes. The Superbowl, the final of American football, causes serious absenteeism ratings all over the US ("Study: Super Bowl affects worker absenteeism the day after the game", 2005). The day after the Super Bowl, 1 percent of the total work force planned to call in sick. In the two cities of the teams playing in the Super Bowl, an enormous 8 percent planned to call in sick. Another reason for absenteeism can be that employees think it is waste not to use all of their sick days available ("Unscheduled absenteeism on the rise", 2005). Hackett, Bycio and Guion (1989) mention that when one or more absence-inducing events occur, employees go through some kind of mental process where they are consciously evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of going to work. Organizational commitment and organizational involvement also play a role here. Several meta-analyses have been conducted in order to investigate the subject of absenteeism and its correlations with other variables. Scott and Taylor (1985) depict that there are some moderate associations between employee absenteeism and the work itself, absence frequency and satisfaction with colleagues, and absenteeism and overall satisfaction. Scott and Taylor (1985) continue with stating that they found some correlations between those variables but certainly not any causal relationships. Hackett (1989) synthesized three meta-analyses regarding the relationship between absenteeism and job satisfaction and came to the conclusion that there is a weak negative relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism.
This is backed up by Lewig and Dollard (2003), who confirm that they could not find a direct link between job satisfaction and absenteeism but they could establish a direct significant link between emotional exhaustion and absenteeism (for call centres in Australia). Management Today (1999, in Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004) reported an absenteeism rate of 5 percent in the call centre industry compared to the average rate of 3.5 percent in the United States. Hackett and Bycio (1996) mention that the absenteeism rate for nurses is also higher - 38 -
Job satisfaction
compared to other professions but this is also due to physical injuries and stress. Therefore, as Hackett and Bycio (1996) suggest, by staying away nurses appeared to gain control over intolerable levels of fatigue (emotional and physical), like some kind of maintenance function.
3.3.6 Perceived stress
Another variable that is correlated to satisfaction is (perceived) stress. Stress is a dynamic condition in which a person is confronted with a demand, a constraint, or an opportunity associated with what this person wants and for which the result is perceived to be both important as well as uncertain (Jackson and Schuler, 1985; Robbins, 2003). Employees are more complaining about stress at home and at work, causing enormous amounts of dollars in absenteeism and turnover each year (Lu, 1999; Verespej, 2000). Although stress is often discussed in a negative context, it can also be positive (Robbins, 2003). Quick and Quick (1984, in Broadbridge, 2002) explain that stress, when it has a negative outcome, is called distress, and that stress, when it has a positive outcome, is called eustress. Stress can lead to a better performance in sports for example. It can help to achieve a superior performance at crucial moments (Robbins, 2003). When relating stress to employees, there are several symptoms that can indicate that an employee is experiencing too much stress. The employee can lose his appetite, develop high blood pressure, get headaches, gain or lose weight, get confused and has trouble making decisions, get depressed, sleep too much or too little, get digestive problems, and so forth (Adler, Kalb and Rogers, 1999; Robbins, 2003). According to Robbins (2003), these symptoms can be classified in three categories: Psychological, physiological, and behavioural. For companies, the psychological symptoms are the most important. Stress can cause dissatisfaction. According to Griffeth et al. (2000), stress is positively related to turnover, absenteeism, viral infections, and coronary heart disease. There have been several meta-analyses concerning the relationship of job satisfaction and stress. Adler et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis and showed that stress has a strong negative relationship with job satisfaction. Babin and Boles (1998) conducted another meta-analysis and the results regarding the relationship between the same variables is the same. Congruent with the findings of the meta-analysis, several regular research articles confirm this strong negative (or inverse) relation between job satisfaction and stress (Hollon and Chesser, 1976; R. H. Miles, 1975; R. H. Miles and Petty, 1975).
- 39 -
Job satisfaction
Tetrick and LaRocco (1987) conducted a research among physicians, dentists and nurses and found that understanding and control have an important moderating role on the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived stress. They mention that when nurses get more control over their jobs and have a better understanding of what is happening and what is needed, the negative relationship between job satisfaction and perceived stress will weaken. Stress is an important factor in call centres. Employees at call centres experience stress as a result of conflicting demands of the company, supervisors, and the customers (de Ruyter, Wetzels and Feinberg, 2001; Franklin, 2000; Marquez, 2006; Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004). This occurs because supervisors focus on technology to speed up the process of customer interaction without realizing that the most important aspect of working in a call centre of an organization is to satisfy the customer (de Ruyter et al., 2001; Lewig and Dollard, 2003; Taylor and Bain, 1999; Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004). When employees feel more controlled, there is a decrease in intrinsic motivation. Moreover, employees of call centres are mainly monitored by electronic means, which is also a major factor of work stress (Aiello and Kolb, 1995; de Ruyter et al., 2001). De Ruyter et al. (2001) conducted research in call centres and confirmed the negative relationship between job satisfaction and stress. In Figure 3.2 this relationship between stress and job satisfaction can also be seen. As mentioned before, stressors play an important role in the call centre environment and seem to have a higher influence than in other industries, like the retail industry (Zhong et al., 2006).
3.3.7 Job performance
Next variable that is correlated to job satisfaction is job performance. This is one of the most researched topics in the organizational behaviour field. Important to add is that most of the correlations between job satisfaction and a particular construct is two-way. Vroom (1964, in House and Wigdor, 1967) examined 20 studies to investigate the strength of the relationship between job satisfaction and performance. He found that 17 studies revealed a moderate positive relationship and only three found a negative relationship. One of the first to conduct a meta-analysis on this relationship were Petty, McGee and Cavender (1984). Petty et al. (1984) provided a limited meta-analysis and found that job satisfaction and job performance were positively correlated (moderately high). Petty et al. (1984) conducted their study over 20 years in only 5 journals and only to 16 studies. However, at this point, Petty et al. (1984) admit that there was not sufficient data to conduct a proper meta-analysis on the research of
- 40 -
Job satisfaction
job satisfaction and job performance. Still they concluded that their analysis and results were stronger than any research that had been conduced to that date. A year later, another metaanalysis was conducted on this relationship. Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) conducted a meta-analysis from 74 studies. In contrast to the meta-analysis conducted by Petty et al. (1984), Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) found only a small positive relationship between the constructs of job satisfaction and job performance. The results of the Iaffaldano and Muchinsky study are more significant and relevant than the study conducted by Petty et al. (1984) because this study was far more comprehensive. Still, if the strength of this correlation is only weak, organizations have to keep in mind that it matters whether their employees are satisfied.
The most current meta-analysis conducted on this relationship is the meta-analysis of Judge, Thoresen, Bono and Patton (2001). Judge et al. (2001) found that the average correlation of job satisfaction and job performance was substantially higher in their research than in the meta-analysis conducted by Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985). This was due to the fact that Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) used correlations at the single satisfaction facet (Judge et al., 2001) and not at multiple facets of job satisfaction. In other words, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) compared single facets of job satisfaction to job performance while Judge et al. (2001) compared multiple facets of job satisfaction to job performance, resulting in higher correlations.
Furthermore, Judge et al. (2001) investigated several relationships that job performance and job satisfaction can have and represented this in one figure for future research. These relationships were presented in different models in the article. Figure 3.3 shows their total or complete model of the various models on the relationships between job performance and job satisfaction. In Figure 3.3, one can see that job satisfaction can exert a causal effect on job performance. This also holds for the other way around. Moreover, there may be potential moderating variables influencing these bidirectional relationships. Next, there may be causal relationships between job satisfaction and job performance that are explained by psychological processes (represented in Figure 3.3). There are two models that are not included in the figure, namely a model that job satisfaction and job performance are not related to each other and a model that embeds all alternative conceptualizations of job satisfaction and job performance.
- 41 -
Job satisfaction
Figure 3.3: Integrative model of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance
Moderators Performance-reward contingency Job characteristics Need for achievement Work centrality Aggregation
Mediators Success and achievement Task specific self efficacy Goal progress Positive mood
Job satisfaction
Job performance Mediators
Moderators Personality/self concept Autonomy Norms Moral obligation Cognitive accessibility Aggregation Level of analysis
Behavioral intentions Low performance as withdrawal Positive mood
Retrieved from Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. and Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), p. 390.
The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has also been researched in the two fields that are interesting for this research. Wanous (1974) was one of the first to set up his research in a call centre environment. The sample used in this research contained 80 newly hired female telephone operators (Wanous, 1974). He found that there was a reciprocal positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. De Ruyter et al. (2001) conducted their research in call centres as well and they wanted to investigate the antecedents and consequences of stress on employees, supervisors and customers. The research shows that
- 42 -
Job satisfaction
job satisfaction is indeed positively related to job performance. Therefore, it is important for call centre managers to undertake steps to satisfy their employees.
Concerning the health care industry and in particular the employment of nurses, there have been several research articles that investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. While Brief and Aldag (1976) and London and Klimoski (1975) only refer to the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance in an indirect manner, Porac, Ferris and Fedor (1983) show a direct positive relationship between the two variables. Crow, Hartman and Henson (2006) look at the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance in an interesting perspective. They depict that job dissatisfaction leads to a decrease in job performance. In other words, when an employee feels dissatisfied and is frustrated about how things go at work, he or she is not functioning as effectively as he or she could have done when he or she would be happy and satisfied (Crow et al., 2006). They stress that organizations should also try to decrease dissatisfying factors and not only to add satisfying factors. According to Crow et al. (2006), dissatisfying factors are the main reason why there is a shortage of nurses. The next construct that will be discussed is productivity, as this construct is rather similar as job performance.
3.3.8 Productivity
Another variable that is correlated to job satisfaction is productivity. The concepts of job performance and productivity are seemingly correlated. Productivity is the ratio of what is produced by a person, machine, office, company, and so on, to what is required to produce. Job performance is about those behaviours and actions that an employee controls and that contribute to the goals of a company. The difference between those concepts lies in the fact that productivity can apply to machines, offices, and persons while job performance usually only applies to a single person. Moreover, productivity measures only quantitative aspects while job performance also embraces qualitative aspects. The relationship between job satisfaction and productivity is something that employers have kept busy for a long time. They are wondering whether satisfied employees actually produce more than when they are dissatisfied. Brayfield and Crockett (1955) found that for employees that were working at a yard that the most satisfied employees worked at the most productive yard. They mention that there was a big difference in productivity but not that big difference between yards in morale
- 43 -
Job satisfaction
or satisfaction. Brayfield and Crockett (1955) refer to the relationship between job satisfaction and productivity as an important one, but not as a strong one. Katzell, Yankelovich, Fein, Ornati and Nash (1975) were interested in finding possibilities for increasing job satisfaction and productivity at the same time. They mention that there is evidence that the two constructs are related to each other and that they are not independent of each other. Katzell et al. (1975) depict that under certain environmental conditions improving satisfaction will lead to an increase in productivity and an increase in productivity could lead to an improvement in worker satisfaction. This could also be due to an increase of extrinsic motivation because of higher salary. Katzell et al. (1975) explain that the relationship between job satisfaction and productivity is so weak and that there are so many links between them, that efforts that aimed at increasing productivity or job satisfaction will only increase the other variable marginally at best. Weiss (2002) mentions that job satisfaction and productivity can go hand in hand when a total quality system is implemented. Job satisfaction and productivity are also related in an indirect way. Job satisfaction and productivity are significantly negatively related via burnout, indicating an indirect relationship (Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan and Schwartz, 2002).
Robbins (2003) mentions that the introduction of moderating variables in statistical analysis benefited the relationship between job satisfaction and productivity. He continues by explaining that this relationship is stronger when the behaviour of employees are not controlled or limited by environmental factors. An example could be that when an individual is working at an assembly line, it does not matter that much whether the employee is satisfied or not, because the speed of the assembly line is what mostly determines the production in this case. Concerning causality between the two constructs, Robbins (2003) depicts that productivity is more likely to lead to satisfaction than the other way round. There remains a gap in current research regarding the relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in the health care and the call centre industry.
3.3.9 Life satisfaction
An additional variable that is correlated to job satisfaction is life satisfaction. Job satisfaction is researched before life satisfaction. One of the first to explore this research area are Brayfield, Wells and Strate (1957), who investigated the relationship between job satisfaction
- 44 -
Job satisfaction
and general satisfaction. They were the ones to suggest that more research was needed of the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Near, Rice and Hunt (1978) suggested that job satisfaction would be a subordinate (component) of life satisfaction. Two years later Rice, Near and Hunt (1980) reviewed the existing literature on the relationship between the two variables and found that individuals that are satisfied with their jobs tend to be satisfied with other parts of their lives and life in general. Similarly, individuals that are not satisfied with their current work situation tend to be dissatisfied with other parts of their lives as well (Rice et al., 1980). However, Rice et al. (1980) mention that the relationships found in their review were not particularly strong. Chacko (1983) found that job satisfaction and life satisfaction were indeed related to each other and he found that the results were more supportive to the idea that job satisfaction has a bigger impact on life and non-work satisfaction than the other way around. Tait, Padgett and Baldwin (1989) made an ending to the statement that life and job satisfaction were only weakly correlated. They showed, by means of a meta-analysis, that the two variables were stronger correlated than previous research had suggested. However, the issue of causality of the two variables remained unclear. Another meta-analysis that researched the relationship between job and life satisfaction is the research conducted by Kinicki et al. (2002). Kinicki et al. (2002) agreed with Tait et al. (1989) that the two are more strongly correlated than many researchers thought. They show a moderate positive correlation between the two constructs. In addition, Adams, King and King (1996) depict that job satisfaction has a positive influence on life satisfaction.
Judge and Watanabe (1993) succeeded partially in decreasing confusion regarding the causality of the two constructs. They proposed a figure that clarified the relationship between the two variables, which is depicted as Figure 3.4. The results of this study by Judge and Watanabe (1993) back up that there is a significant positive relationship between job and life satisfaction. Both variables seem to mutually reinforce each other, as can be seen in Figure 3.4 (the two vertical arrows between job satisfaction and life satisfaction) (Judge and Watanabe, 1993). The cross sectional results (the horizontal lines representing the 5-year time lagged period) suggest a strong bidirectional relationship that is similar in size. Figure 3.4 also shows that both cross-lagged regression coefficients were significant (the two crossed arrows) but that life satisfaction had a significantly stronger lagged effect (a time period of five year) on job satisfaction than the other way round. Regarding the two environments that are crucial for this research, the call centre industry and the health care industry, there has not been any research conducted on the relationship of job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Figure 3.4 is - 45 -
Job satisfaction
also relevant for this research since the influence of several control variables on job satisfaction is investigated. As with Figure 3.4, tenure, education, age, and gender are included as moderating variables in this study to see what their effects are on the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on the one hand and job satisfaction on the other hand. In this paper, the influence of the moderating variables whether an employees has a full time contract (or a part time contract) and whether an employee has a full time job (or a part time job) will also researched.
Figure 3.4: Causal model estimates of job and life satisfaction (*p < .05, one-tailed; **p < .01, one-tailed)
Retrieved from Judge, T. A. and Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), p. 946.
- 46 -
Job satisfaction
3.3.10 Mental health
The next variable that is correlated to job satisfaction and will be discussed is mental health. Furnham and Schaeffer (1984) investigated the relationship between person-environment fit, job satisfaction and mental health. They were one of the first to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and mental health. The study was conducted among full-time working adults and 82 were selected. Furnham and Schaeffer (1984) found that when a correlation was carried out between job satisfaction and a number of variables, a high significant correlation was found between job satisfaction and mental health. They suggest that the better an employees health was, the more satisfied he was with his job. This is backed up by Hesketh and Shouksmith (1986), who conducted their research among veterinarians in New Zealand with as main goal to examine the relationship between job and non-job activities, job satisfaction and mental health. Furthermore, also non-job activities (like life satisfaction) were positively correlated to mental health. Clegg, Wall and Kemp (1987) also found a significant correlation between job satisfaction and mental health. They showed that assembly line (female) workers who where dissatisfied with their jobs also tend to suffer from lower mental health conditions. Clegg et al. (1987) depicted that assembly workers that were dissatisfied increased their frequency of day dreaming, and day dreaming is directly negatively correlated to mental health. The most current research that investigated the relationship between job satisfaction and mental health is from Williams, Konrad, Scheckler, Pathman, Linzer, McMurray, Gerrity and Schwartz (2000). They predicted and found a moderate positive two-way relationship between the two variables. They also found an indirect relationship between job satisfaction and mental health that went through stress. Both satisfaction and mental health were highly negatively correlated to stress (Williams et al., 2000). Furthermore, job satisfaction is indirectly related to physical health as well (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser and Ryan, 1993). This indirect relationship between the two variables runs through experienced feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness in the work environment.
The only relevant study concerning the health care industry that used nurses and investigated the relationship between the two constructs is the study conducted by Elovainio, Kivimki, Steen and Kalliomki-Levanti (2000). Over 75 percent of the 2600 employees of several wards in different hospitals used for this research were nurses (Elovainio et al., 2000). The results found in this study are congruent with what previous studies regarding the relationship - 47 -
Job satisfaction
between job satisfaction and mental health suggested. There is a clear positive relationship between the two variables (Elovainio et al., 2000). Concerning the call centre sector, there has no research been conducted on the relationship between job satisfaction and mental health.
3.3.11 Motivation
The most relevant variable for this study that is correlated to job satisfaction is motivation. Since this research is investigating the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction, the construct of motivation should be seen as the most significant of the various constructs discussed in this chapter. One of the first that tried to link satisfaction and motivation are Brayfield and Crockett (1955). They found that satisfaction with an individuals position in a social network of relationships needs not to imply that there is a strong motivation to perform within that network of relationships. Herzberg (1966, in House and Wigdor, 1967) seems to have found a relationship between motivation and job satisfaction when he developed his two-factor theory. This two factor theory has as main propositions that satisfiers (motivators) and dissatisfiers (hygiene) are unidimensional and independent and that satisfiers have more motivational force than dissatisfiers (Herzberg, 1966 in House and Wigdor, 1967). Herzbergs theory has been used and criticised very often (see for example Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005; Boe, 1970; Brenner, Carmack and Weinstein, 1971; Crompton, 2003; Farr, 1977; Gardner, 1977; Haywood and Wachs, 1966; Herzberg, Mathapo, Wiener and Wiesen, 1974; House and Wigdor, 1967; Leach and Westbrook, 2000; Maidani, 1991; Shipley and Kiely, 1988; Timmreck, 2001). Both propositions are highly damaged by House and Wigdor (1967) who showed that some components that are classified as satisfiers, like recognition and achievement, can also be classified as dissatisfiers. Moreover, any attempt to distinguish between the two constructs created by Herzberg requires an arbitrary definition of the classifications of satisfiers and dissatisfiers and even when there can be a good classification of those two constructs, the proposition is untestable (House and Wigdor, 1967). Normal logic can play a role here as well. The issue of unidimensional is out of question since a satisfying factor for one employee can be a dissatisfying factor for another.
Locke (1976, in Tietjen and Myers, 1998) also criticised Herzbergs motivators and hygiene factors. He mentioned several criticisms like that Herzberg made a distinction between
- 48 -
Job satisfaction
psychological and biological processes, which is impossible, that there is no such thing as unidirectional needs (a man can do things with several reasons and not just one), that there is a gap between the motivation and hygiene factors and an individuals needs that needs to be filled, that there an incident classification systems (that he is inconsistent in categorizing factors of satisfaction) (which is similar to the critique by House and Wigdor (1967)), that there is defensiveness (where employees take credit for what goes right but blame others when it goes wrong), that he used frequency data, and last that there is a denial of individual differences.
Drake and Mitchell (1977) investigated the effects of horizontal and vertical power on motivation and satisfaction and found that both vertical and horizontal power had a significant influence on motivation and satisfaction. Vertical linkages refer to the supervisor-subordinate relationship and horizontal linkages refer to relation between sub groups and peers. This research suggests that managers should balance power among sub groups and within subgroups to ensure a maximum of motivation and satisfaction among employees (Drake and Mitchell, 1977). Philips and Freedman (1984) conducted their research to find out what and how situational constraints influenced motivation and satisfaction. Philips and Freedman (1984) build on the ideas of Peters and OConnor (1980), namely that situational constraints have a negative effect on both motivation to perform and satisfaction. Furthermore, motivational strategies designed to increase motivation are limited by those situational constraints (Peters and O'Connor, 1980). Phillips and Freedman (1984) showed a significant moderate positive relationship between job satisfaction and motivation. The results of their study indicate that the presence of situational constraints have a serious influence on motivation and satisfaction. Therefore, it is important for organizations to keep in mind that the work environment and job design can be crucial on the motivation and satisfaction of their employees like a cafeteria where employees can eat. Moreover, situational constraints do not necessarily have to lead to a decrease in motivation and satisfaction when employees think that those constraints did not reduce the possibility and the ability of reaching desired goals.
Ilardi et al. (1993) agree that organizations need to make sure that satisfaction can be enhanced within an organization. Managers have to attend also to employees experiences of autonomy, competence and relatedness to the work environment in order to create motivation and thus satisfaction with their employees. Clearly, when there are too many constraints in the work environment, the employee will have difficulty feeling related to the job. Beltramini and - 49 -
Job satisfaction
Evans (1988) investigated the influence of sales contests on satisfaction and motivation among sales people. They found that indeed sales contests appeared to have a positive influence on both satisfaction and (extrinsic) motivation of salespeople. However, those sales contests should be perceived separately from their regular compensation otherwise sales people might only become motivated when a sales contest is coming up (Beltramini and Evans, 1988). Lambert (1991) conducted her research in order to find out what the combined effects were of family and job characteristics on intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction and job involvement of men and women employees. Lambert (1991) found a relationship between satisfaction and motivation and she found that womens jobs are less stressful and rewarding but also provide greater social rewards than mens jobs. This is due to the higher intrinsic motivation of women compared to men and women may therefore be also more satisfied than men in similar jobs.
A current meta-analysis on the relationship between job satisfaction and motivation has been conducted by Kinicki et al. (2002). They investigated the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index by reviewing and using a meta-analysis on studies that examined antecedents, correlated and consequences of job satisfaction. The Job Descriptive Index is created to measure the construct of job satisfaction (Kinicki et al., 2002). They found that job satisfaction was positively moderately correlated to motivation, as has been suggested by other authors. This is of course relevant for organizations and this backs up what common sense already suggested, namely that managers need to enhance employees motivation in order to increase satisfaction.
Timmreck (2001) mentions that for the health care industry, motivation and satisfaction are key concepts to reduce turnover, producing high quality work, keeping costs within reasonable limits, and developing and maintaining worthwhile and productive working relations with colleagues, supervisors and subordinates. Timmreck (2001) depicts that there are 8 areas for which motivation (and its relation to satisfaction) is important in the health care industry. These eight areas are when commitment to work is a relevant part of the job, when the job is central to an employees identity and life, when employees with a higher education have high expectations of the job, when the employee is not valued, when employees are easily alienated by performing dull and standard tasks, when there is a lack of responsibility and stifling bureaucratic approaches, when job satisfaction and work motivation are thought of as unimportant work-related topics, and when bad treatment of workers is - 50 -
Job satisfaction
avoidable due to working with professional personnel. The first three areas show a positive influence on motivation and the last five show a negative impact on motivation. Timmreck (2001) concludes with explaining that health care managers need to treat their employees with fairness, dignity and respect together with motivators in order to create satisfaction among their employees, better communication, improvement in quality and an increase in production. When managers fail to create satisfaction among their nursing personnel, hospitals experience high turnover rates, increased rates of absenteeism, and a decrease in motivation of the employees. More importantly, this can have negative consequences for the patient.
Sargiacomo (2002) acknowledges the importance (and correlation) of both concepts and proposed the Deming cycle (Deming, 1982 in Sargiacomo, 2002), known for the application in total quality management, for benchmarking in the health care industry in Italy, which is represented in Figure 3.5. Sargiacomo (2002) proposed this cycle in order to create a focus on quality and to improve therewith motivation and satisfaction among health care employees in Italy. This should be done through the plan-step (to declare what the intention is and to plan the project), the do-step (which deals with the search of data), the check-step (report of the results and determine the gaps and improvements needed), and the act-step (choosing and implementing improvements identified). Logically, a cycle does not end and therefore this focus on quality is a never-ending process. Sargiacomo (2002) depicts that the focus on quality in every aspect of the organization will lead to an increase in motivation for the employees that are involved in this process. A problem could be that too much quality control can lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation.
Kavanaugh, Duffy and Lilly concur with Sargiacomo (2002) that satisfaction and motivation are important in establishing quality in the health care industry. Kavanaugh et al. (2006) investigated the relationship between job satisfaction and a number of demographic variables. They found that of all demographic variables that could have an influence on job satisfaction years of working on the job was the most important variable. Kavanaugh et al. (2006) suggest that mentoring and coaching is needed in the health care environment for those employees that are somewhat dissatisfied in order to retain their talents and to decrease turnover rates in hospitals. Nurses that are working very long on the job tend to be very consistent and can be very helpful in teaching and educating their younger colleagues. A critical element in this analysis is that these older nurses need to be motivated as well otherwise they will not really educate and help their younger colleagues. - 51 -
Job satisfaction
Figure 3.5: The Deming cycle applied to benchmarking in the health care industry
Retrieved from Sargiacomo, M. (2002). Benchmarking in Italy: The first case study on personnel motivation and satisfaction in a health business. Total Quality Management, 13(4), p. 491.
Savery (1989) conducted his research in Australia investigating the perceived influence of several factors on job satisfaction of nurses. Using a sample of 100 state registered nurses, Savery (1989) found that factors that have been identified as intrinsic motivators and meeting expectations seem to have an important part of achieving high levels of job satisfaction for a specific individual or at least preventing job dissatisfaction. Some of these intrinsic motivators include mentally challenging work with which the employee can deal successfully, personal interest in the job itself, high self-esteem on the part of the employee, and so on (Savery, 1989).
A common stereotype regarding call centre work is an employee sitting behind a desk answering to questions of the customer all day and doing work that is neither complicated nor challenging (Taylor and Bain, 1999). The opposite is true however; call centre work is very demanding, both in physical labour as well as in emotional labour (Taylor and Bain, 1999; Wegge et al., 2006; Zhong et al., 2006). Call centre employees are instructed to be friendly, - 52 -
Job satisfaction
enthusiastic, helpful, calm and polite even when consumers are very rude and impatient, and this results in conflicting emotions when employees have to deal with these customers (Wegge et al., 2006). Lewig and Dollard (2003) refer to this state of mind as emotional dissonance. Emotional dissonance requires high amounts of emotional labour. Wegge et al. (2006) conducted two studies in several call centres to research a number of hypotheses that have been tested before in other industrial areas but not the call centre environment. They found that high motivating potential was significantly correlated to work motivation (which includes high job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, personal
accomplishments, and low turnover intentions) and better well-being (which includes lower health complaints and low emotional exhaustion). Regarding the relationship of job satisfaction and work motivation, they found that the two are significantly positively correlated to each other.
- 53 -
Chapter 4: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
In this chapter, the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation will be discussed. First, intrinsic motivation is defined and described. Next, the concept and construct of extrinsic motivation will be clarified. Then the focus will shift to several authors depicting the relationships concerning intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Fourth, the debate whether or not extrinsic rewards have a negative influence on intrinsic motivation will be extensively elaborated. Last, the two concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are applied to the two samples used in this research, namely nurses and call centre agents.
4.1 Intrinsic motivation
Human motivation is one of the key issues in the field of organizational behaviour and psychology (Bnabou and Tirole, 2003). Understanding why we do the things that we do has been investigated and researched in order to find the major drives behind this concept. Motivation energises and directs certain behaviour toward reaching a specific goal (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). Motivation is often referred to as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is the motivation to do or act in ones own interests or simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself (Hennessey and Amabile, 2005). Robbins (2003) depicts that it is the desire to work on something that is interesting, challenging, satisfying, exciting or involving. Intrinsic motivation is the innate and natural propensity to engage an individuals interests and exercise an individuals skills and capabilities, and in so doing, to look for and achieve optimal opportunities and challenges (Deci and Ryan, 1985). This motivation comes from internal tendencies and can direct and motivate behaviour without the presence of constraints or rewards (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Translating intrinsic motivation to the work environment, it holds that employees genuinely care about their work, that employees search for better ways to get their work done, and that employees are enthusiastic and committed to perform well at their jobs (Thomas, 2000). According to Amabile (1993), intrinsic motivators are necessarily bound up with work itself. The intrinsic motivation of having pleasure in a certain activity may cause the individual to spend many days practising a sport, an instrument, and so on. Many government agencies and educating organizations emphasize the advantages of intrinsic motivation and depict that students should do everything and work hard on tests,
- 54 -
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
projects, regular classes, and such because they want to learn for joy and not because of constraints or rewards (Dreikurs Ferguson, 2000).
Intrinsic motivation is defined as performing an activity for its intrinsic satisfactions rather than for some distinguishable consequence (Deci and Ryan, 1985). When an individual is intrinsically motivated he or she will move for the challenge or the enjoyment instead of the promise of rewards or avoiding punishment (Deci and Ryan, 1985). From birth on, humans are active, curious, and interested animals, when they are not held back by illness, and they show an ever-present eagerness to explore and learn (Dreikurs Ferguson, 2000). Thus, there is no need for extrinsic motivations to move them. According to Ryan and Deci (2000a), research on intrinsic motivation has focused most on certain conditions that elicit, sustain, and enhance this type of motivation against those conditions that undermine or decrease it. The cognitive evaluation theory, as part of the self-determination theory, specifies factors in social contexts that cause variability in intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985). This cognitive evaluation theory states that those interpersonal events and structures (like feedback, rewards, communication and so on) that lead to feelings of competence during a certain action can increase intrinsic motivation for the specific action since these feelings permit satisfaction of the innate psychological need for competence that is inherent for humans (Deci and Ryan, 1985). The cognitive evaluation theory states furthermore that feelings of competence need to be combined by a sense of autonomy (or internal perceived locus of causality) in order to increase intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985). In other words, individuals must perceive their behaviour to be self-determined and not guided by rewards or constraints. Individuals have to experience a fulfilment of the needs of competence and autonomy. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), it is critical to understand that intrinsic motivation will occur only for situations that contain intrinsic interests for a person. For those situations that do not have this appearance, the principles of the cognitive evaluation theory do not apply (Deci and Ryan, 1985). In the research at hand, the cognitive evaluation theory will be linked to intrinsic (and extrinsic) motivation to see what the relationship between the two constructs is.
There is disagreement about the proper and right construct of intrinsic motivation between several researchers. Lepper, Green and Nisbett (1973) and Deci and Ryan (1985) agree that intrinsic motivation refers to an activity that meets basic human needs for control and for competence, which makes the activity interesting, challenging and fun and therefore more - 55 -
likely to be performed for its own sake than as a means to some end result (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). Shah and Kruglanski (in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000) depict that there are two ways to define intrinsic motivation. The first is defined in terms of structure, which is when an activity is related to a single goal. The second is defined in terms of substance, which is when the content of the goal matters. Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) define intrinsic motivation as a process as well as a result and suggest that it is a process situated in our normal regulation of behaviour. Moreover, motivation to perform activities that are goal directed at a certain point in time could depend on the level to which we experience enjoyment and interest. These are just some of the differences in the construct of intrinsic motivation available. Logically, this will result in some debate between various authors on the relationship of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, which will be discussed later on.
4.2 Extrinsic motivation
Next to intrinsic motivation is extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation refers to performing an activity with a feeling of being pressured, tension, or anxiety just to make sure that one would achieve the result that he or she desires (Lindenberg, 2001). Hennessey and Amabile (2005) depict that extrinsic motivation is the motivation to do something to make sure that some external goal is attained or that some external imposed constraint is met. Extrinsically motivated behaviours are actions that cause the attainment of rewards that are externally imposed, including material possessions, salary, additional bonuses, positive feedback and evaluations from others, fringe benefits, and prestige (Ryan and Deci, 2000b). Extrinsic motivation can easily be seen in everyday life; employees that only go to work because of the salary they receive or students that are obliged to go to university simply because their parents make them go.
Although intrinsic motivation is a very crucial type of motivation, most of the activities performed by humans are not intrinsically motivated activities. This can be seen after the early years of a human being, when the freedom of being moved pure by ones own interests becomes overshadowed by social demands and roles one has to play that require persons to take responsibility for tasks that are not initially intrinsically motivating (Deci and Ryan, 1985). There are some perspectives on extrinsic motivation that view this type of motivation
- 56 -
as non-autonomous, but Deci and Ryan (1985) propose the self-determination theory to vary in the level to which it is autonomous. An example of different types of extrinsic motivation can easily be thought of. One could think of a young individual that joined a professional soccer team. He could be pressured by his parents, friends, family and such to join the club to boost their egos but he could also have joined the soccer club to think of all the prices and rewards he could win. Of course, there is the possibility that the young individual is intrinsically motivated but when one looks at the two examples given, one can see that there are multiple types of extrinsic motivation.
Within the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985), a second subtheory called the organismic integration theory copes with the several types of extrinsic motivation and the related factors that either increase or decrease internalization and integration of the regulation for behaviours. Internalization refers to the process through which an individual gets a belief, attitude or behavioural regulation and progressively changes it into a personal goal or value. Integration (the final step of internalization) refers to the process by which persons more totally alter the regulation into their own so that it will come from their sense of self (Deci and Ryan, 1985). A good example of integration refers to a child that comes to understand that throwing a ball inside the house is not good (something might brake or his mother might get upset), overcoming previous thoughts of enjoyment of throwing the ball inside the house.
The organismic integration theory is depicted in Figure 4.1 and shows the taxonomy of types of motivation. Moving from the left to the right of the figure, there is an increase in the motivation for an individuals behaviour that comes from ones self. At the far left in Figure 4.1 there is amotivation, which refers to a state of lacking an intention to move or act (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). According to Ryan and Deci (2000a), when an individual is amotivated his or her behaviour shows no sense of causation and intentionality. Under extrinsic motivation, there are several subcategories with different levels of autonomy. Just to the right of amotivation is external regulation, which is the least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. Behaviours classified in this category are merely to satisfy an external demand or to meet an externally imposed constraint. People feel controlled or alienated with this type of behaviour and their actions have an external perceived locus of causality. DeCharms (1968, in Ryan and Deci, 2000a) refer to an external perceived locus of causality when the individual is seen as a pawn to heterogeneous forces. With an internal perceived locus of causality the individual is believed to be an origin of his behaviour (deCharms, 1968 in Ryan and Deci, - 57 -
2000a). Ryan and Deci (2000a) refer to this type of extrinsic motivation as the extrinsic motivation used in early lab studies that was used to contrast intrinsic motivation. Next to external regulation is introjected regulation, which refers to this type of internal regulation that is still pretty controlling since individuals do these actions with a feeling of being pressured with as main goal to avoid anxiety or guild or to increase pride.
Figure 4.1: A taxonomy of human motivation

Extrinsic motivation Amotivation
Regulatory styles
Intrinsic motivation
External regulation
Introjection
Identification
Integration
Associated processes
Perceived non contingency
Salience of
Ego
Conscious valuing of activity
Hierarchical synthesis of goals
Interest / Enjoyment
extrinsic rewards involvement or punishments
Low perceived competence Compliance / reactance Non relevance
Focus on approval from self and others Selfendorsement of goals Congruence
Inherent satisfaction
Non intentionality
Perceived locus Impersonal of causality
External
Somewhat external
Somewhat internal
Internal
Internal
Retrieved from Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, p. 61
To the right of introjected regulation is identification, which is a more autonomous and selfdetermined form of extrinsic motivation. With this type of extrinsic motivation, the individual has related to the personal importance of a behaviour and therefore has accepted its regulation as his or her own behaviour. Ryan and Deci (2000a) give an example that clarifies this type of
- 58 -
extrinsic motivation. They mention a young individual that studies spelling lists since he perceives them to be relevant for writing (which he considers a life goal) has identified with the value of this learning activity. The last, and most autonomous, type of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation. This occurs when identified regulations have been completely assimilated to the self of that individual. This is still extrinsic motivation because behaviour motivated by internal regulation has still been done for some value in order to obtain some result or to avoid punishment (Ryan and Deci, 2000a).
As it is the case with the construct and definition intrinsic motivation (as can be read earlier in this chapter), there has been much disagreement in defining the construct and the definition of extrinsic motivation. There seem to be two major definitions available in the research on this topic (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). The first one is when motivation is derived from something extrinsic to the individual and the second one refers to when motivation is derived from something extrinsic to the activity. Ryan and Deci (2000a) agree with the second definition that extrinsic motivation is based on something extrinsic to the activity. They suggest that individuals can have multiple kinds of extrinsic motivation that are different in terms of the level to which the individual is self-determined. This kind of extrinsic motivation (self-determined) can be strong enough to motivate persons to be persistent in activities that are not intrinsically motivating. Hidi (in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000) agrees with the first definition on extrinsic motivation. She depicts that persons are extrinsically motivated when the source of this extrinsic motivation is extrinsic or outside to the individual. She mentions that persons could be motivated by a certain level of interest that is created by the features of the activity but she stresses that this is extrinsic motivation. There has been some confusion about the several definitions of extrinsic motivation. This has an influence on the debate regarding the influence of rewards on intrinsic motivation between proponents of intrinsic motivation and proponents of extrinsic motivation. This discussion will be elaborated later in this chapter.
Calder and Staw (1975) were one of the first to examine the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They tested this relationship from the angle of the self perception theory. The self-perception theory (not discussed in the chapter on theories of motivation due to limited time and space of this research) is developed by Bem (1967; 1972) and holds that individuals develop attitudes by looking at their own behaviour and then concluding what attitudes might have caused them. In other words, individuals kind of observe their own - 59 -
behaviour and then conclude why they have acted in such ways. An example could be that if an individual keeps on watching a specific programme on television because his parents watch it and he sees that he does not dislike the programme, he can conclude that he likes the programme himself. Calder and Staw (1975) proposed a figure using the self-perception theory on the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which is represented here as Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: A means-end analysis of the self-perception of motivation
Affect of ends Negative or neutral Negative or neutral Affect of means Positive Intrinsically motivated behaviour No motivation Positive Extrinsically motivated behaviour Unstable
Retrieved from Calder, B. J. and Staw, B. M. (1975). Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), p. 604.
When looking at Figure 4.2, one can see that extrinsic motivation can be attributed most obviously when the means are negative or neutral and the ends are positive and intrinsic motivation can be attributed most obviously when the means are positive and the ends are negative or neutral (Calder and Staw, 1975). When the means are negative or neutral and the ends are negative or neutral as well there should be no motivation present (Calder and Staw, 1975). Last, when the means are positive and the ends are positive as well the attribution maybe unstable. The results of the experiment of Calder and Staw (1975) indicate that the effect of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors on task persistence and satisfaction indeed suggest a strong relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Their experiment was conducted with jigsaw puzzles, either blank or with pictures varying from the American president to Playboy centrefolds. They created this interaction by manipulating intrinsic motivation (with black and pictured jigsaw puzzles) and rewarding subjects with dollars.
- 60 -
Having a picture on the puzzle triggered the means of the activity while adding a monetary reward to a blank puzzled triggered the end.
The problem with finding an appropriate, unique and comprehensible construct for both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has result in an even more complex relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The problem is that even when authors have written concerning this relationship they have found different results. One of the few sources that have touched this topic are the authors that have written in Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000). A summary of what those authors have been depicting regarding this topic will be explained here. Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) depict that the same extrinsic motivation, in this case performance contingent rewards, can at the same time start processes that can lead to an increase in intrinsic motivation as well as extrinsic motivation. Lepper and Henderlong (in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000), however, propose that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can operate at the same time and do not essentially have to be reciprocal. Sansone and Smith (in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000) depict that extrinsic motivation can enhance intrinsic motivation when it motivates a person to take part in strategies that increase interests. Deci and Ryan (1985), Deci et al. (1999), and Ryan and Deci (2000) make a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and propose that there are identical factors that can increase intrinsic motivation by promoting feelings of self-determination but at the same time can promote self-determined extrinsic motivation (and the other way around) (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). Despite some differences among these researchers regarding the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) mention that the researchers no longer focus on mutually exclusive relationships between the two constructs. Next will be the debate of the effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, looked upon from different angles.
4.3 The influence of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation
4.3.1 The start of the debate
The origin of this debate started back in the 1970s, when several researchers started to doubt the additive nature of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). Deci (1971) was one of the first to investigate the relationship between extrinsic rewards and
- 61 -
intrinsic motivation. He found that extrinsic rewards had a negative effect on intrinsic motivation, when money was used as an extrinsic reward. Positive feedback and verbal reinforcement, however, tended to have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971). Deci (1972) used undergraduate students with a puzzle called Soma for investigating the relationship between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards. The students that were offered extrinsic rewards for puzzling seemed to be less interested in the puzzles than the students that were not extrinsically rewarded. Deci (1972) found that students who were paid for doing the puzzle became less likely to do the puzzle in their own free time period. Deci (1972) suggested that there should not be a focus on external control systems such as monetary rewards, but on creating and structuring situations that are interesting and challenging. Calder and Staw (1975) also investigated the relationship between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. They proposed that when a task involved high initial intrinsic motivation, the introduction of extrinsic rewards could lead to the self-perception that the individual is doing the activity just to get the reward. In contrast, when a task would involve less initial intrinsic motivation, this self-perception effect should not occur. These propositions are later on investigated by several authors.
Lepper, Green and Nisbett (1973) conducted their research among nursery school children regarding drawing pictures. They tested the consequences of shifting an individuals perception on his own motivation from being intrinsically motivated to being extrinsically motivated by adding a reward to a situation where one was intrinsically motivated. The children were rewarded for drawing some pictures (Lepper et al., 1973). The results show that individuals in the expected-award condition would show less subsequent intrinsic interest in the target activity than individuals in the unexpected-award conditions and the no-award condition. In other words, including an external reward to an activity that was previously on pure interest makes individuals less intrinsically motivated to perform that activity. Lepper et al. (1973) refer to this as the over-justification effect. Calder and Staw (1975) concurred with Lepper et al. (1973) with the fact that extrinsic rewards had a negative influence on subjects that found the initial activity intrinsically motivating. Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell (1977) conducted a similar study as Deci (1971) and Deci (1972) but now with a chess problem task. Again, some students were offered monetary rewards and then later was checked which students performed the same task. The results support the hypothesis that extrinsic rewards have a negative influence on intrinsic motivation (Pritchard et al., 1977). This negative effect is not limited to monetary rewards as several studies have showed - 62 -
(Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). One of those studies, by Amabile, DeJong and Lepper (1976), showed that deadlines had a negative effect on intrinsic motivation as well. Deci and Ryan (1985) showed that several other factors, like surveillance and competition, also had a negative effect on intrinsic motivation.
Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed their cognitive evaluation theory depicting that it is not the external event itself, but the functional significance that is important. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), the initiation and regulation of behaviour have three aspects that may be differentially salient to different individuals or to the same individual at different moments. Those three aspects are informational, controlling and amotivating (Deci and Ryan, 1985). It is the relative salience of these three aspects to a certain individual that influences changes in perceived causality and competence and that changes an individuals intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985). When the informational aspect is more salient and positive, this can enhance an individuals intrinsic motivation because he or she might feel competent. On the other hand, when the controlling aspect is more salient, this should lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation because the individual has a feeling of being controlled, which is negative (Deci and Ryan, 1985). The findings of Deci (1971; , 1972), Deci, Cascio and Krusell (1975) and Deci and Ryan (1985) are backed up by Jordan (1986), who confirmed the propositions made from the cognitive evaluation theory. Jordan (1986) clarifies that the expectation of extrinsic rewards contingent upon performance decreased initial intrinsic motivation of individuals.
The emphasis regarding rewards then focused on a different type of reward, namely a reward offered for achieving a certain level of competence in a situation (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). These so-called performance-contingent rewards had the characteristics of being highly controlling but at the same time to have the potential to communicate positive competence feedback (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). The research on these performancecontingent rewards is very mixed. Some depict that performance contingent rewards have a negative effect on motivation (e.g., Harackiewicz, 1979), some show that these rewards have a positive effect (e.g., Karniol and Ross, 1977 in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000), and others who have found no effect (e.g., Boggiano and Ruble, 1979). One of the criticisms stated that the negative results of using rewards came from bad operationalizations of the reward as a reinforcer (See for example: Flora, 1990; Reiss and Sushinsky, 1975; , 1976). Wiersma (1992) conducted a meta-analysis investigating the relationship and influence of - 63 -
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. He continues by suggesting why it is clear that the findings have not been consistent over the past decades regarding this relationship. The proposition, based on the cognitive evaluation theory (that is discussed in the motivational theories section), that contingently applied extrinsic rewards decrease intrinsic motivation, is indeed supported when task behaviour is calculated during a period of spare time. On the other hand, this is not supported when task performance is measured when the extrinsic reward is in effect. Wiersma (1992) continues by suggesting that this effect is strongly tied to the way intrinsic motivation is operationalized and that situations to which this proposition could be generalized are limited.
The debate moved a bit to the background until 1996, when it was brought to life by Eisenberger and Cameron (1996). From that point on there have been several groups of authors supporting their own way of thinking and criticising other groups. The various groups are Eisenberger and Cameron (Eisenberger and Cameron, 1996; Eisenberger and Cameron, 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1999a; Eisenberger et al., 1999b), Deci and Ryan (Deci, 1971; , 1972; Deci et al., 1975; Deci et al., 1999; Deci and Ryan, 1985; Deci et al., 1981; Ryan, 1982; Ryan and Deci, 2000a; , 2000b; Ryan and Grolnick, 1986; Ryan, Mims and Koestner, 1983), Amabile and Hennessey (Amabile, 1993; Amabile et al., 1976; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey and Tighe, 1994; , 1995; Hennessey and Amabile, 1998; , 2005), Sansone and Harackiewicz (Harackiewicz, 1979; Harackiewicz, Manderlink and Sansone, 1984; Sansone and Harackiewicz, 1998; , 2000), and Lepper and Henderlong (Henderlong and Lepper, 2002; Lepper et al., 1973; Lepper et al., 1999; Simon and Holyoak, 2002).
4.3.2 Conclusions of the debate
All else being held constant, Lepper and Henderlong (in Lepper et al., 1999; in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000) depict that there are basically three propositions regarding the discussion in the literature on the relationship of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. The first is that non contingent rewards will be less likely to cause negative effects on intrinsic motivation and more likely to cause positive effects than otherwise the same rewards that are contingent of task completion or engagement (and under special conditions on task performance). Second, unexpected extrinsic rewards are more likely to cause positive effects than negative effects on intrinsic motivation than rewards that are expected by the individual.
- 64 -
And last, extrinsic rewards that are intangible (like social, verbal, implicit and such) are more likely to produce positive effects than negative effects on intrinsic motivation compared to rewards that are more tangible. There are two more propositions in the literature that are supported by most (Lepper and Henderlong, in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). The first proposition holds that rewards that focus on an individuals abilities, skills, and competences will more likely have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation than rewards that do not give such information. The second is that expected tangible rewards can improve intrinsic motivation with tasks where the individual has a no or little initial intrinsic interests and decrease intrinsic motivation with tasks where the individual has high initial intrinsic task interests. Lepper and Henderlong (in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000) propose a figure that summarizes most of the literature on the effects of rewards on motivation, which is represented here as Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: A schematic view of how rewards can affect subsequent intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation via the variables of perceived continued instrumentality, perceived competence, and perceived autonomy
Perceived continued instrumentality Extrinsic performance requirement? Subsequent extrinsic motivation
If yes
Sufficient perceived competence?
If yes
Reward procedure
Perceived competence
Possibility of learning?
If no
Possibility of learning?
If yes
If yes
Intrinsic performance requirement? Perceived autonomy Sufficient perceived competence?
If yes
Subsequent intrinsic motivation
Retrieved from Lepper, M. R. and Henderlong, J. in Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press. p. 264.
- 65 -
As one can see in Figure 4.3, the receipt of extrinsic rewards can communicate the possibility of receiving more rewards in similar situations in the future (Lepper and Henderlong, in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). This is what perceived continued instrumental value refers to. Expectations of continued extrinsic rewards in the future for activities performed can provide continued extrinsic motivation for a person to keep doing those activities (whether or not intrinsic motivation is involved). Furthermore, as can be seen in Figure 4.3, extrinsic rewards could communicate information about the skills and capabilities of an individual at a certain task. Next, there are two ways from personal competence to either intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation. Increases in personal competence can make an individual continue at activities for which extrinsic rewards are expected only at certain levels of performance but increases in personal competence can also lead to an increase in intrinsic motivation (because individuals tend to like to do things where they are good at). Moreover, as can be seen in the lower part of Figure 4.3, the receipt of any extrinsic rewards can communicate information about an individuals autonomy or personal control in that situation. Ceteris paribus, the receipt of rewards that gives individuals the idea that their performances are extrinsically motivated, causes a decrease in intrinsic motivation because individuals dislike the feeling of being controlled. They conclude by stating that the influence of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation depends on the characteristics of the situation, nature of the situation and the initial value to the individual. Moreover, Lepper and Henderlong (in Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000) agree with Deci et al. (1999) that the research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation shows that the two can be in conflict with each other.
When summarizing the different viewpoints on the relationship of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation in the articles of Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999), Eisenberger and Cameron (1996), Hennessey and Amabile (1998), Lepper, Henderlong and Gingras (1999), and Sansone and Harackiewicz (1998) one can see that rewards can have positive and negative effects on intrinsic motivation. These effects depend on the reward contingency, individuals receiving the rewards, individuals offering the reward, the nature of the activity, the feedback obtained, and the general context for reward administration (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). One difference in opinions between various groups of authors is the negative effect of performance contingent rewards on intrinsic motivation. Deci et al. (1999) depict that performance contingent rewards have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. Eisenberger and Cameron (1996), however, depict that performance contingent rewards that - 66 -
focus on high performance, exceeding performance of others, and on achieving an absolute standard of performance can have a positive effect. Sansone and Harackiewicz (1998) add that performance contingent rewards can have positive as well as negative effects on intrinsic motivation. This would depend on whether individuals are able to qualify for the reward.
The greatest difference in opinions regarding the researchers is whether and in what way extrinsic rewards can have a positive influence on intrinsic motivation (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). As with the research on the possible negative influence of rewards on intrinsic motivation, the research with the positive influence of rewards on intrinsic motivation has not reached consensus. Sansone and Harackiewicz (1998) propose that especially rewards that are focused on performing well can positively influence creativity and intrinsic motivation through their effects on mediating processes like general task valuation (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). Hennessey and Amabile (1998) depict that rewards that focus on performance can influence creativity and intrinsic motivation through a mediating process like competence valuation (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong and Gingras (1999) agree that extrinsic rewards can have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation for boring and dull tasks. In other words, when the initial intrinsic motivation is low. In some situations, it remains unclear whether positive effects really outweigh the negative effects. The conclusions of the debate are interesting for this study since the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is part of the central aim of this research. Whether extrinsic motivation has a negative effect on intrinsic motivation will be addressed later on in this paper. The last part of this chapter deals with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the health care industry and the call centre environment.
4.4 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in nursing units and call centres
4.4.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in nursing units
The final part of this chapter focuses on the relationships and constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the call centre industry and the health care environment (with as main emphasis on nursing). Tummers, Van Merode and Landeweerd (2006) investigated organizational characteristics (like decision authority and environmental uncertainty) as predictors of psychological work reactions (like job satisfaction and intrinsic work
- 67 -
motivation) of nurses. Tummers et al. (2006) proposed a framework that summarized the hypothesized relationships of their research. This figure is represented here as Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4: Hypothesized direct relationships between organizational characteristics and psychological work reactions (improved)
Organizational characteristics Decision authority
Psychological work reactions Intrinsic work motivation
Environmental uncertainty
Job satisfaction
Type of unit (ICU/non-ICU)
Emotional exhaustion
Psychosomatic health complaints Direct relationship Indirect relationship (interaction effect) The bold line is important for this research and will be investigated
Retrieved and improved from Tummers, G. E. R., Van Merode, G. G. and Landeweerd, J. A. (2006). Organizational characteristics as predictors of nurses psychological work reactions. Organization Studies (01708406), 27(4), p. 567.
Relevant for this research is that the hypothesis, which states that intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction are primarily predicted by decision authority, is supported by the data (Tummers et al., 2006). Moreover, high environmental uncertainty enhances the positive
- 68 -
effect of decision authority on intrinsic work motivation (only for intensive care units). In other words, when nurses (especially those in intensive care units) are given more authority in decision making, the intrinsic motivation of those nurses is tended to increase. The bold line between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction is what is relevant for this research.
Another study that investigated intrinsic motivation in a nursing environment is the study conducted by Heyes (2005). Heyes (2005) comes with the interesting proposition that increasing the wage of nurses will decrease the proportion of employed nurses that have a vocation. Vocation refers to a job that one does because he or she has a strong feeling that he or she should do that job since it is a purpose or goal of ones life (to help other people). He stresses that vocation should not be confused with organizational citizenship behaviour. With organizational citizenship behaviour, the employee is expected to be motivated by some organizational output, which contrasts with the concept of vocation. The difference between organizational citizenship behaviour and vocation is perhaps not as clear cut as Heyes (2005) mentions. There are some actions of organizational citizenship behaviour that do not focus on some organizational output but can also occur because that person considers it a purpose of ones life. Caring for ones colleagues, punctuality, helping other people, and so forth care elements of organizational citizenship behaviour but can also be part of vocation. The results of Heyes (2005) are pretty straightforward but interesting. He suggests that increasing wages for employees that are employed in sectors where vocation is a common thing can be more problematic than just an increase in salary costs for the organizations. A nurse that does not get paid as much as a nurse that receives significantly more and is highly satisfied with her job, is more likely to have a vocation and to over-perform in his or her role. Therefore, hospitals should be careful with salary increases because this might attract the wrong kind of employees. Heyes (2005) proposes that health care organizations should not try to attract nurses by simply increasing the pay role. Moreover, health care organizations should take in mind the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and the influence of rewards on this relationship.
4.4.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in call centres
Taylor and Bain (1999) stressed that working in a call centre demands relative high amounts of emotional labour of the employees compared to several other sectors. In call centres is a
- 69 -
striking paradox of meeting organizational standards (by being as fast as possible in dealing with the incoming calls) and meeting customer demands (for example to remain friendly despite the rudeness of some customers) while at the same time being monitored by superiors (Workman, 2003; Workman and Bommer, 2004). Taylor and Bain (1999) mention that if operators are pushed too hard with extrinsic targets and quantitative output measurements, then the quality of the service to the customer might suffer. This occurs because commitment and motivation are harmed by an overdose of extrinsic motivators and constraints. The problem, however, is that call centres cannot move away from these big brother aspects because those monitoring techniques are integral to the functioning of the call centres in evaluating the performances of the employees. Ubaldi (1997) depicts that Danish call centres succeed in establishing motivation with their employees. He depicts that motivation can be created by making the employees feel important in the organization. Making the employee familiar with the products of the organization, training the employee appropriately, developing a career plan with the employees, letting employees enjoy their work, making the employees feel responsible, and so on are all motivating techniques that could create motivation with the employees (Ubaldi, 1997). Moreover, the success of the call centre depends on the quality of the employees and therefore call centre employees should be carefully selected in order to fit to a certain idea of how a call centre agent should be.
Wallace, Eagleson and Waldersee (2000) give a somewhat related problem in call centres as Taylor and Bain (1999). They mention that the management of call centres speaks of a customer focus but the call centre agents, however, perceive a productivity focus. Call centre agents are hired for their motivation and communication skills but work with a task and quantitative focus. Moreover, what the call centre employees least like about their jobs is the focus on productivity, which is the focus of management. Contrasting, what the call centre employees like the most about their jobs is the interaction with their peers and with the customers, which is constrained because of the task focus. Wallace et al. (2000) refer to the contrasting situation of being monitored but at the same time to be customer-friendly as the service/efficiency tension within call centres. They propose that call centre management accepts this tension and its consequences in order to be successful. The call centre managers acknowledge the tension created with their employees (by the contrasting demands of the organization and the customers) and accept the high turnover rates that result from it.
- 70 -
Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, Wecking and Moltzen (2006) conducted two studies in call centres in order to investigate work motivation, well being and organizational identification in call centre employees. There were basically two important findings that were similar across the two studies. Higher motivational potential scores for the task were found with employees that had more training, outbound tasks (this refers to employees calling customers themselves instead of receiving calls from customers, which is referred to as inbound tasks), and full-time contracts. These factors can be considered starting points for work motivation, according to Wegge et al. (2006). The second finding depicts that high motivational potential scores were related to high work motivation (which includes high job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, personal accomplishments, and low turnover intentions) and better well-being (lower complaints with health and lower emotional exhaustion). Still the research available does not really stress on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the professions of nurses and call centre agents. Hence, there is room for improvement in these areas. This research will try to clarify the relationship of job satisfaction and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation with call centre agents and nurses.
- 71 -
Chapter 5: Hypotheses development
The previous chapters have focused on summarizing the literature available on the topics of motivational theories, job satisfaction, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. This study is interested in the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction, compared over two different sectors, namely the public sector and the private sector. The nurses represent the public sector while call centre agents represent the private sector. Moreover, the relationship between various motivational theories and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is researched. In this chapter, the hypotheses relevant for this research will be formulated.
5.1 Hypotheses 1-8
As depicted above, the distinction between private and public sector is made during this research to find differences in the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Reviews of current literature show that (work) motivation is different for employees that work in the public sector compared to employees that are employed in the private sector (Ambrose and Kulik, 1999; Boyne, 2002; Buelens and Van den Broeck, 2007; Rainey and Bozeman, 2000; Wright, 2001). A difference between public and private sector employees is that public sector employees want to make positive choices. In other words, public sector employees want appreciation and respect for their family lives, own working rhythms, and their family priorities (Buelens and Van den Broeck, 2007). They are more interested in having a work-family balance than private sector employees that want to put their work above family. Ghinetti (2007) mentions that public sector employees have a welfare premium in better working settings, especially a better social climate and higher perceived job stability (job security). In comparison to private sector employees, public sector employees try to be more worthwhile for society, put more emphasis on service to community, and serve the public interest more (Box, 1999; Boyne, 2002; Gabris and Simo, 1995; Houston, 2000; Perry, 2000; Perry and Wise, 1990).
Current literature also shows some differences between public and private sector employees on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Concerning extrinsic motivation, economic rewards are more important to employees working in the private sector than to employees working in the
- 72 -
Hypotheses development
public sector (Buelens and Van den Broeck, 2007; Houston, 2000; Karl and Sutton, 1998; Khojasteh, 1993; Perry, 2000; Schuster, Colletti and Knowles Jr, 1973; Snyder, Stephan and Rosenfield, 1976). Crewson (1997) found that, on the basis of fourteen national surveys, extrinsic motivators are the most essential for employees working in the private sector. There is some literature contradicting these assumptions. Gabris and Simo (1995) found no significant difference in the need for monetary rewards between public sector employees and private sector employees. Lewis and Frank (2002) found that employees that are interested in high income are more likely to work in the public sector than in the private sector. According to Maidani (1991), public sector employees rate extrinsic aspects, like salary, as more important than private sector employees. However, most authors agree that public sector employees tend to be less extrinsically motivated than private sector employees. Concerning intrinsic motivation, current literature suggests that public sector employees tend to be more intrinsically motivated than private sector employees (Buelens and Van den Broeck, 2007; Crewson, 1997; Leete, 2000). Since the private sector is represented by call centre agents and the public sector by nurses, call centre agents are expected to be more extrinsically motivated and less intrinsically motivated than nurses. Hence, the following hypotheses (the alternative hypotheses are depicted here):
H1a: Call centre agents are more extrinsically motivated than nurses H1b: Call centre agents are less intrinsically motivated than nurses
As can be read in chapter 3 on job satisfaction, current literature has linked motivation to satisfaction extensively (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005; Beltramini and Evans, 1988; Boe, 1970; Brayfield and Crockett, 1955; Brenner, Carmack and Weinstein, 1971; Clark, 1996; , 1997; Crompton, 2003; Drake and Mitchell, 1977; Eskildsen, Kristensen and Westlund, 2004; Farr, 1977; Finck, Timmers and Mennes, 1998; Fisher, Schoenfeldt and Shaw, 1999; Gardner, 1977; Gazioglu and Tansel, 2006; Haywood and Wachs, 1966; Herzberg, Mathapo, Wiener and Wiesen, 1974; House and Wigdor, 1967; Igalens and Roussel, 1999; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser and Ryan, 1993; Kavanaugh, Duffy and Lilly, 2006; Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim and Carson, 2002; Lambert, 1991; Leach and Westbrook, 2000; Lindenberg, 2001; Maidani, 1991; O'Reilly and Caldwell, 1980; Peters and O'Connor, 1980; Phillips and Freedman, 1984; Robbins, 2003; Sargiacomo, 2002; Savery, 1989; Shipley and Kiely, 1988; Thomas, 2000; Tietjen and Myers, 1998; Timmreck, 2001; Wernimont, 1966; Wolf, 1970). Literature linking extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction is rather - 73 -
scarce (Beltramini and Evans, 1988; Lambert, 1991; Lindenberg, 2001). Since the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction is investigated in this paper, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2: Extrinsic motivation is related to job satisfaction H3: Intrinsic motivation is related to job satisfaction
In this paper, call centre agents represent the private sector while nurses represent the public sector. Hypothesis 1 aims to find out whether call centre agents (private sector) are more extrinsically and less intrinsically motivated than nurses (public sector). Hypotheses 2 and 3 try to link the constructs of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction. Interesting would be whether one of the two groups has a greater influence on the relationships of extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypotheses are:
H4: The effect of extrinsic motivation on job satisfaction is stronger for call centre agents than for nurses H5: The effect of intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction is stronger for call centre agents than for call nurses
There is also some literature investigating whether public sector employees are more satisfied than private sector employees. Several authors have found that regarding several aspects of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction, employees that are working in the public sector tend to be more satisfied than employees that are employed in the private sector (Demoussis and Giannakopoulos, 2007; Ghinetti, 2007; Green and Tsitsianis, 2005; Heywood, Siebert and Wei, 2002; Schneider and Vaught, 1993; Vieira, 2005; Vieira, Menezes and Gabriel, 2005). The question remains whether this is the same for the two groups in this paper. Hence, the following hypothesis:
H6: There is a difference in satisfaction between call centre agents working in the private service sector and nurses working in the public service sector
There are also some demographical and organizational differences between the two groups in the samples. Those differences will also be researched in this paper. From the literature on - 74 -
nurses and call centre agents, one can see that the female-male ratio is higher for nurses than for call centre agents (Aranya, Kushnir and Valency, 1986; Cohen and Kol, 2004; DeLoach and Monroe, 2004; Kavanaugh et al., 2006; Lewig and Dollard, 2003; McNeese-Smith, 2001; Pitcher, 2006; Porac, Ferris and Fedor, 1983; Savery, 1989; Sparks, Corcoran, Nabors and Hovanitz, 2005; Taylor and Bain, 1999; Tummers, Van Merode and Landeweerd, 2006; Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, Wecking and Moltzen, 2006; Zawacki and Shahan, 1995; Zhong, Siong, Mellor, Moore and Firth, 2006), that nurses are older than call centre agents (Aranya et al., 1986; Cohen and Kol, 2004; DeLoach and Monroe, 2004; Fang, 2001; Kavanaugh et al., 2006; Knoop, 1995; Lewig and Dollard, 2003; McNeese-Smith, 1999; , 2001; Sparks et al., 2005; Taylor and Bain, 1999; Timmreck, 2001; Tummers et al., 2006; Wegge et al., 2006; Zhong et al., 2006), and that nurses have more education than call centre agents (nurse also need more diplomas for being a nurse than call centre agents do) (Aranya et al., 1986; Cohen and Kol, 2004; DeLoach and Monroe, 2004; Fang, 2001; Kavanaugh et al., 2006; McNeeseSmith, 1999; Sparks et al., 2005; Zhong et al., 2006). Regarding organizational context, nurses have been working at the company longer than call centre agents (Cohen and Kol, 2004; DeLoach and Monroe, 2004; Fang, 2001; Hillmer, Hillmer and McRoberts, 2004; Kavanaugh et al., 2006; Knoop, 1995; Lewig and Dollard, 2003; McNeese-Smith, 1999; , 2001; Sparks et al., 2005; Tummers et al., 2006; Wegge et al., 2006; Zhong et al., 2006) and nurses have more full time contracts and full time jobs than call centre agents (Bain, Watson, Mulvey, Taylor and Gall, 2002; Cohen and Kol, 2004; DeLoach and Monroe, 2004; Franklin, 2000; Lewig and Dollard, 2003; Taylor and Bain, 1999; Wegge et al., 2006). In order to see whether these differences also hold for this paper, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H7a: There are more women working as a nurse than as a call centre agent H7b: Nurses are older than call centre agents H7c: Nurses have a higher educational level than call centre agents H7d: Nurses stay longer at the same company than call centre agents H7e: There are more nurses with a full time contract than call centre agents H7f: There are more nurses with a full time job than call centre agents
Present literature has also investigated the relationship of demographic factors and organizational context factors on satisfaction. Literature has suggested that women tend to be more satisfied than men (Bender and Heywood, 2006; Clark, 1997; Sloane and Williams, 2000; Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000; , 2003; Ward and Sloane, 2000; , 2001), that older - 75 -
employees tend to be more satisfied than younger employees (Clark, 1996; , 1997; Glenn, Taylor and Weaver, 1977; Kacmar and Ferris, 1989; Kavanaugh et al., 2006; Robison, 2002; Warr, 1992), and that employees with a higher educational level tend to be more satisfied than employees with lower a educational level (Clark, 1996; Clark and Oswald, 1996; Florit and Lladosa, 2007; Meng, 1990). Concerning organizational context factors, literature suggests that employees with higher tenure tend to be more satisfied than employees with lower tenure (Bender and Heywood, 2006; Clark, 1997; Hunt and Saul, 1975), employees with a full time contract tend to be more satisfied than employees with a part time contract (Vieira, 2005), and employees with a full time job are more satisfied than employees with a part time job (Eberhardt and Shani, 1984; Miller and Terborg, 1979; Vieira et al., 2005). These findings will be applied to this study as well (in the analysis, there will also be checked which of the two groups has a larger impact) and therefore, the following hypotheses are:
H8a. Female nurses and call centre agents have a stronger influence on job satisfaction than male nurses and call centre agents H8b. Older nurses and call centre agents have a stronger influence on job satisfaction than younger nurses and call centre agents H8c. Nurses and call centre agents with a higher educational level have a stronger influence on job satisfaction than nurses and call centre agents with a lower educational level H8d. Nurses and call centre agents with high tenure have a stronger influence on job satisfaction than nurses and call centre agents with low tenure H8e. Nurses and call centre agents with a full time contract have a stronger influence on job satisfaction than nurses and call centre agents with a part time contract H8f. The effect of call centre agents and nurses on job satisfaction is stronger for employees with a full time job than for employees with a part time job
5.2 Hypotheses on motivational theories
This part focuses on formulating the hypotheses that are linking various motivational theories to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Literature covering this relationship is hard to find. Therefore, the hypotheses in this section are exploratory to make suggestions for future research. The first theory is the equity theory, holding that an employee reflects on how much
- 76 -
effort he has expended and how much he received from the job (Robbins, 2003). Because of the comparisons of an employee concerning rewards and costs (also with other employees), the equity theory is expected to be more related to extrinsic motivation than to intrinsic motivation. In addition, because of the extrinsic motivation aspects present, the theory is expected to be better applicable to call centre agents than to nurses. However, the relationships with intrinsic motivation will also be investigated. Consequently, the hypotheses are:
HQ1: The equity theory is related to extrinsic motivation HQ2: The equity theory is related to intrinsic motivation HQ3: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of the equity theory on extrinsic motivation HQ4: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of the equity theory on intrinsic motivation
The second theory is the expectancy theory. In the expectancy theory, employees will be motivated by the probabilities that effort leads to the desired performance and that a particular performance will lead to certain preferred outcomes (Ferris, 1977; Harder, 1991; Isaac, Zerbe and Pitt, 2001; Kopelman and Thompson, 1976). The expectancy theory relies mostly on extrinsic motivators and therefore the link with extrinsic motivation should be greater than the link with intrinsic motivation (Leonard, Beauvais and Scholl, 1999). From the factor analyses conducted in the chapter of methodology, two constructs (effort and receivement of rewards) have been created to represent the expectancy theory. Since the expectancy theory is expected to be related more to extrinsic motivation than to intrinsic motivation, it is also expected to be better applicable for call centre agents than for nurses. The hypotheses related to the expectancy theory are:
HX1: Effort is related to extrinsic motivation HX2: Effort is related to intrinsic motivation HX3: The receivement of rewards is related to extrinsic motivation HX4: The receivement of rewards is related to intrinsic motivation HX5: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of effort on extrinsic motivation
- 77 -
HX6: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of the receivement of rewards on extrinsic motivation HX7: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of effort on intrinsic motivation HX8: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of receivement of rewards on intrinsic motivation
The goal-setting theory holds that goals are immediate regulators of human action and that a goal is an object or aim of a certain action (Locke, Shaw, Saari and Latham, 1981). Specific and difficult goals, when accepted, can result in higher performance than general and easy goals (Locke 1968, in Locke et al., 1981). Goal-setting has a link to intrinsic motivation (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1994; Hirst, 1988). According to Hirst (1988), goal setting can increase intrinsic motivation on tasks that are not interesting and decrease intrinsic motivation on tasks that are interesting to employees. Goal-setting theory also appears to have linkages with extrinsic motivation (because of its relation to the expectancy theory). Therefore, goalsetting theory appears to have a relation with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The hypotheses are:
HG1: Goal setting is related to extrinsic motivation HG2: Goal setting is related to intrinsic motivation HG3: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of goal setting on extrinsic motivation HG4: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of goal setting on intrinsic motivation
The next theory that is relevant for this paper is the attribution theory. The attribution theory suggests that when employees look at the behavior of others, they try to determine whether this behavior was internally or externally triggered (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003; Robbins, 2003). Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973) linked the attribution theory to extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation by showing that including an external reward to an activity that was previously based on pure interest makes people less intrinsically motivated to do that activity. The attribution theory is expected to be related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. As with the expectancy theory, two constructs (derived from factor analyses) will be used to represent the attribution theory. The hypotheses are: - 78 -
HA1: Contribution is related to extrinsic motivation HA2: Contribution is related to intrinsic motivation HA3: Salary is related to extrinsic motivation HA4: Salary is related to intrinsic motivation HA5: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of contribution on extrinsic motivation HA6: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of salary on extrinsic motivation HA7: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of contribution on intrinsic motivation HA8: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of salary on intrinsic motivation
Another theory that is included in this research is theory X and Y. Theory X holds a rather negative and pessimistic view of managers on employees and theory Y holds a more positive view of managers on employees. Relating theory X and Y to intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, one could say that theory X is more related to extrinsic motivation (because of the involvement of punishments) and theory Y is more related to intrinsic motivation (since employees will become satisfied when they perform well at work). Therefore, theory X and Y is expected to be related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The hypotheses are:
HT1: Theory X and Y is related to extrinsic motivation HT2: Theory X and Y is related to intrinsic motivation HT3: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of theory X and Y on extrinsic motivation HT4: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of theory X and Y on intrinsic motivation
The sixth theory relevant for this study is cognitive dissonance theory. The theory centers around the idea that dissonance is a psychological state of tension, which individuals are motivated to decrease because of the discomfort it brings (Festinger, 1957 in Robbins, 2003). Because of its relation to the attribution theory, the cognitive dissonance theory is expected to be related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Hence, the following hypotheses: - 79 -
HD1: The cognitive dissonance theory is related to extrinsic motivation HD2: The cognitive dissonance theory is related to intrinsic motivation HD3: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of cognitive dissonance theory on extrinsic motivation HD4: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of cognitive dissonance theory on intrinsic motivation
Another theory that is discussed in this paper is the investment model. The investment model holds that job satisfaction should be greater to the extent that the job offers high rewards and low costs (Rusbult and Farrell, 1983; Rusbult, Johnson and Morrow, 1986). When the satisfaction is below a certain point, the motivation of a person to continue at his job/relationship/activity is decreasing. Because of its relation to the equity theory, the investment model is expected to be related to extrinsic motivation as well (evaluation of rewards and costs). However, the investment model is also expected to be related to intrinsic motivation, because an employee evaluates a relationship (with the job, company, or person) also on whether this relationship is interesting, important, challenging, satisfying, and so on. The hypotheses, related to the investment model, are:
HI1: The investment model is related to extrinsic motivation HI2: The investment model is related to intrinsic motivation HI3: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of investment model on extrinsic motivation HI4: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of investment model on intrinsic motivation
The last theory in this paper is the cognitive evaluation theory. The cognitive evaluation theory specifies factors in social contexts that cause variability in intrinsic motivation. The cognitive evaluation theory deals mainly with the influence of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation. As a result, the cognitive evaluation theory is expected to be related to both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The following hypotheses are:
HE1: The cognitive evaluation theory is related to extrinsic motivation HE2: The cognitive evaluation theory is related to intrinsic motivation - 80 -
HE3: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of cognitive evaluation theory on extrinsic motivation HE4: There is a difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the effect of cognitive evaluation theory on intrinsic motivation
5.3 Framework
The hypotheses that have been proposed in the previous section can also be put together in order to clarify the relationships between the various constructs. Hypotheses 1-8 deal with the first part of the problem statement, investigating the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the possible moderating variables, and the motivational hypotheses investigate the link between various motivational theories and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. These relationships are presented in Figure 5.1: Figure 5.1: Framework of constructs and hypotheses of this research
Satisfaction H3
Control variables
H2
Intrinsic motivation H5
H8
Extrinsic motivation H4
H7 H6 H1b Sector dummy (nurses/call center agents) H1a
HQ4 HX7 HX8 HG4 HA7 HA8 HT4 HD4 HI4 HE4
Theories of motivation
- 81 -
Chapter 6: Methodology
An extensive review of the literature was conducted to identify and clarify several theories of motivation and job satisfaction. In order to clarify what research design has been used for this research, the classifications and categorizations made by Blumberg, Cooper, and Schindler (2005) have been used. The degree to which the research question has been crystallized shows that this research is a formal study rather than an exploratory study. The method of data collection follows the principles of an interrogation/communication study and a quantitative approach by means of questionnaire survey that has been handed out to the participants. Only primary data will be used in this research. Moreover, there is no power of the researcher to influence the variables under study, resulting in an ex post facto design. For this research, data is collected to find out whether there is a difference between nurses working in the public service sector and call centre agents employed in the private service sector on various topics like intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, several components of work satisfaction, and different motivational theories. This research is cross-sectional because it has been carried out once. A statistical study is used in order to make inferences from the sample in this research and the research environment is a field setting.
This chapter will focus on and discuss the methodology of this research. It will show the research design chosen for this research and will elaborate on the design of the questionnaire handed out to the respondents in the two samples (call centre agents and nurses). Moreover, it shows which question in the questionnaire is related to which hypothesis. In addition, the meaning of the different variables in this research will be explained and how they will be measured. Furthermore, several tests on the data retrieved will show the reliability and validity of the constructs of this study. Last, there will be an elaboration of which statistical tests will be used to analyze the hypotheses.
6.1 Questionnaire design
The data collection method chosen in this research is the survey, which falls under the heading of the communication approach (Blumberg et al., 2005). The greatest advantage of the survey is its versatility. As Blumberg et al. (2005) mention, a survey has several advantages as a primary data collection approach. It should be the lowest cost option, it
- 82 -
Methodology
requires minimal staff, it is perceived as more anonymous than other primary collection methods, it gives respondents more time to think about their answers, and so on. How the surveys got to the respondents of the call centres and the hospitals has already been described. The questionnaire that was handed out consisted of several parts relevant for this research. The complete questionnaire that has been used for this research can be looked at in Appendix C on page 187. Three versions (English, Dutch and German) have been prepared in order to make sure that each respondent was given an opportunity to respond to the questions in their preferred language.
The first part of the questionnaire focused on the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In order to see whether the participants were more intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, eight questions dealt with intrinsic motivation and seven questions with extrinsic motivation. All questions were based on a Likert scale, which is the most used variation of the summated rating scale in research. The answers that the respondents could choose from ranged from 1 (totally agree) to 5 (totally disagree) and produced interval data. The exception is question 15, where the answers ranged from 1 (very important) to 5 (very unimportant). The second part of the questionnaire was about satisfaction at work. Seven questions were asked to find out whether the participants were satisfied with their work. All questions were based on the five-point Likert scale as in the first part and provided interval data. The third part of this questionnaire dealt with the several motivation theories that are interesting for this research. Eight different motivational theories were spread over sixteen questions, based on the same five-point Likert scale, with as goal to find out what the respondents viewpoints are on these theories. The fourth, and final, part of the questionnaire focused on general demographic and work related data. The questions in this part aimed for information concerning gender, age, tenure, education, full time or part time contracts, and full time or part time jobs of the respondents. The questions on gender (female, male), full time or part time contract, and full time or part time job follow a simple category scale and produce nominal data. The questions on age (18-25, 26-35, 36-46, older than 46), tenure (shorter than 1 year, between 1 and 3 years, between 3 and 5 years, more than 5 years), and education (secondary school, LBO, MBO, HBO, university) produce ordinal data and follow a multiple choice single-response scale. Table 6.1 shows which question in the questionnaire is related to which hypothesis. Important to know is that the research consists of two samples (call centre agents and nurses) and therefore no additional question has been included in the questionnaire to determine the profession of the respondent. - 83 -
Methodology
Table 6.1: Hypotheses and related questions in this research Hypotheses 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 7c 7d 7e 7f Q1, Q3 Q2, Q4 X1, X5 X2, X7 X3, X6 X4, X8 G1, G3 G2, G4 A1, A5 A2, A7 A3, A6 A4, A8 T1, T3 T2, T4 D1, D3 D2, D4 I1, I3 Related questions in questionnaire 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16-22 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15-22 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16-22 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15-22 16-22 16-22, 39 16-22, 40 16-22, 41 16-22, 42 16-22, 43 16-22, 44 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 23 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 23 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 24-26 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 24-26 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 27 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 27 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 28, 29 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 28, 29 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 30, 31 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 30, 31 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 32 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 32 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 33, 34 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 33, 34 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 35, 36 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 35, 36 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 37
- 84 -
Methodology
I2, I4 E1, E3 E2, E4
1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 37 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 38 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 38
6.2 Variables and measures
6.2.1 Dependent variable
In this research, the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is investigated. The correlations between the three constructs remain the same but for the regression analyses, job satisfaction is picked as the dependent variable. Job satisfaction is an affective or emotional response toward a variety of aspects of ones job (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). The second part of the questionnaire is related to the construct of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is operationalized through seven questions that have been created for this research filtered through the existing literature. These seven questions (16-22 in the questionnaire) are measured on five-point Likert scale ranging from totally agree and totally disagree. The items that make up the construct of job satisfaction ask respondents to rate their job satisfaction, their colleagues, their supervisors, the job security at their company, whether they are glad to work at the company, their salary, and whether they experience stress from their job.
6.2.2 Independent variables
6.2.2.1 Intrinsic motivation
The first independent variable in this research is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the motivation to do something for its own sake, for the pure enjoyment of the activity itself (Hennessey and Amabile, 2005). It is the desire to work on something or do something since it is involving, challenging, exciting, interesting, or satisfying (Robbins, 2003). Intrinsic motivation is operationalized through eight questions that have been created for this research based on the existing literature. The questions in the questionnaire are questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 10,
- 85 -
Methodology
11, 12, and 15 and based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from totally agree to totally disagree with the exception of question 15, which has a range from very important to very unimportant. A respondent is asked whether he feels a sense of personal satisfaction when he does this job well, whether his opinion of himself goes down when he does this job badly, whether he takes pride in doing the work as well as he can, whether he feels unhappy when his work is not up to his usual standard, whether he likes to look back on the days work with a sense of a job well done, whether he tries to think of ways of doing his job effectively, whether enjoying what he does matters most to him, and whether it is important to him that his work is challenging and interesting.
6.2.2.2 Extrinsic motivation
Another independent variable in this research is extrinsic motivation, which is the motivation to do something in order to attain some external goal or meet some externally imposed constraint (Hennessey and Amabile, 2005). Extrinsic motivation is operationalized through seven questions that have been created for this research based on the existing literature. The questions in the questionnaire related to this construct are 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, and 14. All of them have been based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from totally agree to totally disagree. A respondent is asked whether he prefers having someone set clear goals for him in his work, whether to him success means doing better than other people, whether he is less concerned with what work he does than what he gets for it, whether he is strongly motivated by the rewards he can earn, whether he is strongly motivated by the recognition he can earn from other people, whether he is worried that he does not meet his targets, and whether he would work harder if he would receive more salary.
6.2.2.3 Motivational theories
The third independent variable in this research is the motivational theories. There are eight motivational theories that have been picked out of a numerous and growing list of motivational theories. Respondents were asked to rate sixteen questions (questions 23-38 in the questionnaire) on one of the eight motivational theories on a five-point Likert scale ranging from totally agree to totally disagree. The eight motivational theories used in this research are the equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965, in Carrell and Dittrich, 1978) in question
- 86 -
Methodology
23, expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964 in Harder, 1991) in questions 24-27, goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968 in Austin and Bobko, 1985) in questions 28 and 29, attribution theory (Heider, 1958 in Borkowski and Allen, 2003) in questions 30-32, theory X and Y (McGregor, 1960 in Burns, 1967) in questions 33 and 34 (from a theory X viewpoint), cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957 in Robbins, 2003) in questions 35 and 36, investment model (Rusbult, 1983) in question 37, and cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1971) in question 38.
6.2.2.4 Sector
The last independent variable in this research refers to the two samples used for this research. A distinction has been made on sector level, namely the public service sector, represented by nurses, and the private service sector, represented by call centre agents. Since the questionnaires are handed out directly to either one of the two groups, no question is included to ask the respondents for their profession. Still, a distinction between the two samples is made during the analysis of the data.
6.2.3 Control variables
Because the research environment is a field setting the variables cannot be controlled and therefore not be manipulated. However, additional variables have been included in this research to make sure that they do not influence the direction and the strength of the hypothesized relationships. The control variables of this research can be found in the fourth section of this paper under the heading of general questions. These general questions can be further divided in items that are related to the demographics of the individual and to items that are related to his current situation at work. The questions on demographics (39-41) deal with gender, age, and educational background. The work-related items are represented in questions 42-44 by tenure, contract, and full time/part time job.
6.3 Validity and reliability tests
For testing the validity and reliability, a number of tests can be used. This research uses factor analyses for reducing data to account for the validity of the scales used and uses Cronbachs Alpha to test a constructs reliability. A principal component factor analysis was conducted on - 87 -
Methodology
the items of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, satisfaction, and the various motivational theories used in this research. The factor analysis is included to validate the scale used in the questionnaire for the two samples (n = 439). Important to know is that the factor analyses on the independent variables intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and satisfaction are merely used as an indication. These constructs, as can be read earlier in this chapter, simply have predetermined questions that make up this particular construct. For the motivational theories however, the factor analyses are used to create new constructs. Blumberg et al. (2005) depict that a factor analysis can serve to determine construct validity. Hair, Babin, Money and Samouel (2003) explain that the factor loadings need to be above 0.4, since a factor value below 0.4 holds that the correlation between the factors and the original value becomes too low. When looking at the factor analyses of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, satisfaction, and the motivational theories in Table 6.2 and in Appendix A on page 160 (five of eight theories needed factor analyses) there only was one item below 0.4 (the third item of extrinsic motivation: 0.352). In general, the construct validity is given. As can be seen in Table 6.2, there are ten constructs created by factor analyses. Hence, two motivational theories (attribution and expectancy theory) are represented by two constructs.
Cronbachs Alpha () is used to test the reliability of the constructs in this research. Important is to make a distinction between the explanatory and the more exploratory part of this research. The concepts of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and satisfaction are concepts that have been discussed extensively in the literature. To link various motivational theories to the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be considered exploratory since it has (almost) never been done before. Therefore, the Cronbachs alphas found for these motivational constructs should be looked at as a possible improvement for future research. Cronbachs Alpha is used to measure the conformity of the various variables that make up a single construct. One can only get a Cronbachs Alpha value between 0 and 1. A value of 0 would mean that the variables are totally unrelated and a value of 1 would mean that the variables show total overlap. The problem with Cronbachs Alpha is that there is no common agreement which Cronbachs Alpha values provide reliable constructs. A commonly used rule of thumb is .70 (Hair et al., 2003). But even Cronbach himself depicted that when one would get a value of of .60, this would still be acceptable (Dunn, Seaker and Waller, 1994). The relevant Cronbachs alpha values can be seen in Table 6.2 and in Appendix A. For the constructs of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and satisfaction, respectable Cronbachs alpha values have been found (.72, .67, and .71 respectively). Regarding the - 88 -
Methodology
motivational theories, five composed constructs could be retrieved from factor analyses and run on Cronbachs Alpha (four of them gave values around = .50). The reliability and validity of the constructs in this research is certainly acceptable but for the constructs, especially those of the various motivational theories, there is room for improvement.
Table 6.2: Constructs, factor analysis and Cronbachs Alpha

Constructs Questions Factor loadings (components) Cronbachs Alpha
1
Intrinsic motivation
1. I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well 2. My opinion of myself goes down when I do this job badly 5. I take pride in doing the work as well as I can 7. I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard 10. I like to look back on the days work with a sense of a job well done 11. I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively 12. What matters most to me is enjoying what I do 15. It is important to me that my work is challenging and interesting
2 -.146 -.308 .084 -.442 -.117 -.122 .639 .537 -.268 .239 .665 -.086 -.398 -.438 .451 -.076 -.408 -.307 -.029 -.036 .680 .580 .7131 .6702 .7239
.564 .581 .634 .591 .754 .563 .524 .541 .576 .668 .352 .711 .609 .484 .611 .759 .626 .685 .638 .723 .414 .465
Extrinsic motivation
3. I prefer having someone set clear goals for me in my work 4. To me, success means doing better than other people 6. Im less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it 8. I am strongly motivated by the rewards I can earn 9. I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people 13. I am worried that I do not meet my targets 14. If I would get more salary, I would work harder
Job satisfaction
16. I am satisfied with my job 17. My colleagues are great to work with 18. I can get along nicely with my supervisors 19. The job security is high in this organization 20. I am glad to work at this company 21. I am satisfied with the salary I receive 22. My work is very stressful
Motivation theories Equity theory

23. I compare what I put into a job and what I get out of it to my peers
n.a. .579 .797 .646
n.a. -.643 -.167 .323
n.a. .4970
Expectancy theory 1 24. I will put as much into my job as I expect to get from it
25. If I work hard, I do well 26. If I do well, I will be rewarded
- 89 -
Linking extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction and to motivational theories Expectancy theory 2 27. If I will receive a reward, I will like the reward Goal setting theory
28. I like to set difficult goals for myself 29. When the company sets goals I am more motivated to perform
Methodology
.450 .808 .808 .815 .819 -.089 .784 .784 .816 .816 n.a. n.a.
.659
n.a. .4673
Attribution theory 1
30. When something goes wrong at work, I usually contribute it to external factors 31. When things go right at work, it is because I did something right 32. If you would receive less salary, would you remain at the same job?
.097 .011 .995
.5061
Attribution theory 2 Theory X and Y
n.a. .3729
33. Supervisors think of us as lazy, irresponsible, uncreative and unambitious 34. I only work for the salary and the rewards I receive
Cognitive dissonance 35. I often disagree with things that happen at work theory Investment model Cognitive evaluation
36. I sometimes I have to do things that are unethical to me 37. If I am satisfied with my job, I will be less likely to change to another job although it might pay more 38. I dislike my work more when there are more targets set by the organization
.4966
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
6.4 Data analysis and hypotheses tests
In order to analyze the data collected for this research and to test the hypotheses conducted the software program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) will be used. First, the complete structure of the questionnaire has been constructed in SPSS to enable the possibility of importing data. Then, all questionnaires (n = 439) have been imported to SPSS in combination with the independent variable dummy sector to distinguish between the two samples. In the beginning, the value 1 would mean that the respondent was a nurse in one of the three hospitals and the value 2 would mean that the respondent was a call centre agent at one of the two call centres in this research. Later on in the analysis, the values were recoded into 0 and 1 respectively for simplifying the research. Another grouping variable has been used in this analysis as well in order to distinguish from which location the respondents come (1 = hospital Maastricht, 2 = hospital Sittard, 3 = hospital Roermond, 4 = call centre A Heerlen, and 5 = call centre B Maastricht). This variable will only be used in the descriptive analysis. The control variables of gender, age, tenure, education, contract, and full time/part time job were recoded into dummy variables. There was no need to recode the variables of gender, contract and full/part time job but it simplified the research in this case. After importing the data of all the respondents in SPSS, the different variables that are part of one total variable in the research (like satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic
- 90 -
Methodology
motivation) are computed into one construct (summated value divided by number of questions related to that variable). This has been done because a respondents opinion on all questions reflecting that specific topic can be seen. A problem occurred with the construct of satisfaction. Before computing the total constructs, the various questions making up a single construct have been checked whether they behave similarly (reliability). One of the items of the construct of satisfaction, stress, was negatively related to the other items of satisfaction. This reverse scale problem was solved by adding a new variable (called satstr_a in SPSS) that reversed the answering scale of the respondents for that specific question. Moreover, to deal with the few missing values in the data set, SPSS has been used to include the mean of that specific variable for the analysis. This will not influence the results but ensures that the respondent is still used in the analysis. There were several other constructs created in this analysis as can be seen earlier in the validity and reliability tests. The various motivational theories were represented in constructs while some motivational theories (attribution theory and expectancy theory) even had two constructs. Moreover, interaction variables were created for investigating relationships between several constructs. These interaction variables, together with the constructs created, were necessary for analyzing the data.
After importing data into SPSS and defining constructs, the descriptive part of the data analysis will start. In order to find out the characteristics of the two samples, descriptives will be run for all variables. Furthermore, the correlations between the dependent, independent, and control variables will be investigated to give an indication of the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables. Pearson correlation techniques will be used to show these correlations. Pearson is used to measure the strength of a linear relationship between two variables (Bowerman and O'Connell, 2003; McClave, Benson and Sincich, 1998).
Regression analyses and independent t-tests have to be conducted to test the hypotheses proposed in this research. This will be done with the help of the statistical analyzing program SPSS (version 11.0.0). The first, sixth, and seventh hypotheses are checked with independent t-tests. For the first part of this research, hypotheses 2-5, and 8, satisfaction functions as the dependent variable. The grouping variable (nurses/call centre agents) functions in every regression analysis as an independent variable. Extrinsic motivation functions as an independent variable in hypotheses 2 and 4. Intrinsic motivation functions as an independent variable in hypotheses 3 and 5. Furthermore, interaction variables are included in hypothesis 4 (extrinsic motivation * grouping variable) and hypothesis 5 (intrinsic motivation * grouping - 91 -
Methodology
variable). The control variables are included in hypothesis 8. For the second part of this research, regressions are run on various theories of motivation. Each construct of a motivational theory (attribution theory and expectancy theory have two constructs) accompanies four regression analyses. In the first regression, extrinsic motivation functions as the dependent variable and the motivational theory and grouping variable function as independent variables. The second regression is the same as the first, except for the dependent variable, which is intrinsic motivation. The third regression is the same as the first regression and an interaction variable of the motivational theory and the grouping variable is included. The fourth regression is the same as the second regression with the inclusion of the relevant interaction variables.
This chapter depicted the methodology of this research. A review of the literature was needed for developing an appropriate questionnaire for getting answers to the topics to be researched. A survey has been chosen for this research because of its main advantages in data collection. This chapter described how the questionnaire is built up and how the construction of the questionnaire addresses the variables in this research. Next to the data collection method, the various variables of this research have been explained. Last, this chapter showed how the data and hypotheses will be analyzed. The following chapter will show the data analysis and results of this study.
- 92 -
Chapter 7: Data analysis and results
The previous chapter focused on the research design and questionnaire design of this study. It showed how the questionnaire is constructed to address the appropriate variables and hypotheses conducted for this study. In addition, the validity and reliability tests for the different constructs have been presented. This chapter will show the analysis of the data with the statistical analyzing program SPSS together with the results of the hypotheses conducted from the extensive literature review. First, the characteristics of the samples will be depicted and presented in the shape of descriptives. Then, a correlation test has been used to show the direction and strength of the relationships between the various constructs used in this research. Third, the assumptions of the regressions are explained and applied to this research. Last, the results of the various independent t-tests and regression analyses are presented
7.1 Characteristics of the samples
The populations targeted in this research are employees that are working in the service industry. To narrow this down, two subpopulations are chosen, namely the public service sector (in this case nurses), and the private service sector (call centre agents). The classifications and characteristics of the samples in this research are based on Blumberg, Cooper, and, Schindler (2005). The samples used in this research are based on a convenient basis. In other words, this means that the samples are based on non-probability. Nonprobability holds that the members are selected on a non-random and subjective manner. Not every participant has a known non-zero chance of being selected in the samples. Underlying reasons for this non-probability sampling are the limited time constraint of this research, the limited financial funds for this research, and the availability of the participants. Most call centres contacted refused to let their call centre agents take part in this research for various reasons. These restrictions resulted in choosing convenient sampling as the most appropriate tool for this research. The data needed for this sample has been collected at several locations.
Regarding the call centres, data has been collected from two different locations. Both firms have requested, in order to protect their image, reputation, brand, and such, to stay anonymous in this research. Sixteen call centres, dispersed over Limburg, have been contacted and asked whether they wanted to cooperate in this research. Only one, firm A,
- 93 -
Data analysis and results
situated in Heerlen, was interested in cooperating. Firm A is a so-called dispatch pharmacy that predominantly sends medicine products to customers (mostly located in Germany) after being ordered by phone or by Internet. In agreement with the contact at firm A, the questionnaire (translated in German) was sent to firm A by e-mail. Next, the human resource manager printed several questionnaires and handed them out to call centre agents that were able and interested in filling in the questionnaires. Last, the completed forms were then sent back to the researcher two weeks later. After a couple of months firm B decided to cooperate as well in this research. Firm B is an international mobile network operator with the head office of the Netherlands located in Maastricht. In agreement with the contact at firm B, a personal assistant of one of the top managers, the questionnaires were printed out and left behind at firm B for call centre agents to fill in. After three weeks, the completed questionnaires were collected and used for analysis. From the start on, it has been made clear that the questionnaires could be filled in anonymously.
Concerning the hospitals, a somewhat similar path was chosen to collect data. Three hospitals were used for this research. The respondents that were included in this research are employed at the Academisch Ziekenhuis in Maastricht, at the Maasland Ziekenhuis in Sittard, and at the Laurentius Ziekenhuis in Roermond. The choice for these hospitals was mainly because of location advantages. The procedure for collecting data from respondents was the same for every hospital. The head nurses of the wards were given general information regarding this thesis and they were asked whether nurses could fill in this questionnaire. Almost all responded positive and agreed was that the completed questionnaires were picked up one to two weeks later. Like the questionnaires for the call centre agents, the nurses were able to fill in the questionnaire anonymously.
Table 7.1, presented below, shows the frequencies of the two samples used in this research. First, one can see how the respondents are spread over the various locations. Next, one can see how many men and women are working in the samples. Third, the age categories of the respondents are presented followed by the educational level of the respondents. Then, the various categories of tenure are presented. Sixth, one can see what type of contract the respondents of the two samples have. Last, one can see whether the respondents have a full time job or a part time at that company.
- 94 -
Table 7.1: Frequencies of the samples

GROUP2 Cumulative Percent 32,3 46,9 52,8 59,9 100,0
Valid
Maastricht hospital Sittard hospital Roermond hospital Firm A Heerlen callcentre Firm B Maastricht callcentre Total
Frequency 142 64 26 31 176 439
Percent 32,3 14,6 5,9 7,1 40,1 100,0
Valid Percent 32,3 14,6 5,9 7,1 40,1 100,0
GROUP2 * 39. What is your gender? * GROUP Crosstabulation 39. What is your gender? Female Male 107 35 46,1% 15,1% 49 15 21,1% 6,5% 21 5 9,1% 2,2% 177 55 76,3% 23,7% 27 4 13,0% 1,9% 122 54 58,9% 26,1% 149 58 72,0% 28,0%
GROUP Nurses
GROUP2
Maastricht hospital Sittard hospital Roermond hospital
Total Callcenter agents GROUP2 Firm A Heerlen callcentre Firm B Maastricht callcentre Total
Count % of Total Count % of Total Count % of Total Count % of Total Count % of Total Count % of Total Count % of Total
Total 142 61,2% 64 27,6% 26 11,2% 232 100,0% 31 15,0% 176 85,0% 207 100,0%
GROUP2 * 40. What is your age? * GROUP Crosstabulation 40. What is your age? 26-35 36-46 39 32 16,8% 13,8% 20 18 8,6% 7,8% 12 7 5,2% 3,0% 71 57 30,6% 24,6% 11 6 5,3% 2,9% 60 39 29,0% 18,8% 71 45 34,3% 21,7%
GROUP Nurses
GROUP2
18-25 38 16,4% 9 3,9% 3 1,3% 50 21,6% 14 6,8% 49 23,7% 63 30,4%
Older than 46 33 14,2% 17 7,3% 4 1,7% 54 23,3%
28 13,5% 28 13,5%
Total 142 61,2% 64 27,6% 26 11,2% 232 100,0% 31 15,0% 176 85,0% 207 100,0%
GROUP2 * 41. What is your educational background? * GROUP Crosstabulation 41. What is your educational background? GROUP Nurses Secondary school 18 7,8% 4 1,7% 1 ,4% 23 9,9% 13 6,3% 34 16,4% 47 22,7% LBO 1 ,4% 1 ,4% MBO 49 21,1% 24 10,3% 15 6,5% 88 37,9% 5 2,4% 93 44,9% 98 47,3% 3,1 HBO 71 30,6% 33 14,2% 10 4,3% 114 49,1% 6 2,9% 34 16,4% 40 19,3% University 3 1,3% 2 ,9% Total 142 61,2% 64 27,6% 26 11,2% 232 100,0% 31 15,0% 176 85,0% 207 100,0%
Count % of Total Sittard hospital Count % of Total Roermond hospital Count % of Total Total Count % of Total Callcenter agents GROUP2 Firm A Heerlen callcentre Count % of Total Firm B Maastricht Count callcentre % of Total Total Count % of Total
GROUP2 Maastricht hospital
2 ,9% 5 2,4% 5 2,4% 10 4,8%
1 ,5%
1 ,5%
5 2,2% 1 ,5% 10 4,8% 11 5,3%
- 95 -
GROUP2 * 42. How many years have you been working at this job? * GROUP Crosstabulation 42. How many years have you been working at this job? Shorter Between 1 Between 3 More than than 1 year and 3 years and 5 years 5 years 17 19 28 78 7,3% 8,2% 12,1% 33,6% 5 6 14 39 2,2% 2,6% 6,0% 16,8% 1 4 5 16 ,4% 1,7% 2,2% 6,9% 23 29 47 133 9,9% 12,5% 20,3% 57,3% 8 9 11 3 3,9% 4,3% 5,3% 1,4% 58 39 17 62 28,0% 18,8% 8,2% 30,0% 66 48 28 65 31,9% 23,2% 13,5% 31,4%
GROUP Nurses
GROUP2
Total 142 61,2% 64 27,6% 26 11,2% 232 100,0% 31 15,0% 176 85,0% 207 100,0%
GROUP2 * 43. Do you have a ? * GROUP Crosstabulation 43. Do you have a ? Full time Part time 1,4 contract contract 98 44 42,2% 19,0% 40 24 17,2% 10,3% 19 7 8,2% 3,0% 157 75 67,7% 32,3% 26 5 12,6% 2,4% 76 3 97 36,7% 1,4% 46,9% 102 3 102 49,3% 1,4% 49,3%
GROUP Nurses
GROUP2
Total 142 61,2% 64 27,6% 26 11,2% 232 100,0% 31 15,0% 176 85,0% 207 100,0%
GROUP2 * 44. My current job is a * GROUP Crosstabulation 44. My current job is a Full time job Part time job 94 48 40,5% 20,7% 34 30 14,7% 12,9% 15 11 6,5% 4,7% 143 89 61,6% 38,4% 24 7 11,6% 3,4% 63 113 30,4% 54,6% 87 120 42,0% 58,0%
GROUP Nurses
GROUP2
Total 142 61,2% 64 27,6% 26 11,2% 232 100,0% 31 15,0% 176 85,0% 207 100,0%
- 96 -
Table 7.2
Correlations
GROUP
Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr. mot. questions) ,000 439 -,495** ,000 439 439 439 439 439 439 439 -,052 ,272 1 , -,162** ,001 -,130** ,006 ,149** ,002 ,174** ,000 ,258** ,000 439 439 439 439 439 439 439 439 , ,272 ,000 ,008 ,653 ,542 ,315
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) ,044 439 -,060 ,209 439
Computed Computed intr. motiv. extr. mot. (sum of intr. (sum extri. mot. factors / mot. factors / total numb. total numb. of intr. mot. extr. mot. GROUP questions) questions) 1 ,270** -,495** , ,000 ,000 439 439 439 ,270** 1 -,052 39. What is your gender? ,049 ,303 439 ,127** 40. What is your age? -,148** ,002 439 -,022 42. How 41. What is many years your have you been educational working at this background? job? -,246** -,337** ,000 ,000 439 439 -,029 -,048 ,014 439 -,025 ,596 439 43. Do you 44. My current have a ? job is a ,179** ,196** ,000 ,000 439 439 ,096* ,117*
Computed sat. (total fact. sat. incl reverse stress / total numb. sat. questions) ,178** ,000 439 ,419**
Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. questions)
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
Computed sat. (total fact. sat. incl reverse stress / total numb. sat. questions) 39. What is your gender?
40. What is your age?
41. What is your educational background?
42. How many years have you been working at this job?
43. Do you have a ?
44. My current job is a
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,178** ,000 439 ,049 ,303 439 -,148** ,002 439 -,246** ,000 439 -,337** ,000 439 ,179** ,000 439 ,196** ,000 439 ,419** ,000 439 ,127** ,008 439 -,022 ,653 439 -,029 ,542 439 -,048 ,315 439 ,096* ,044 439 ,117* ,014 439 -,162** ,001 439 -,130** ,006 439 ,149** ,002 439 ,174** ,000 439 ,258** ,000 439 -,060 ,209 439 -,025 ,596 439 1 , 439 ,044 ,361 439 ,068 ,156 439 ,056 ,241 439 ,041 ,388 439 ,007 ,885 439 ,078 ,104 439 ,044 ,361 439 1 , 439 -,081 ,091 439 -,028 ,559 439 -,111* ,020 439 -,143** ,003 439 -,248** ,000 439 ,068 ,156 439 -,081 ,091 439 1 , 439 ,125** ,009 439 ,613** ,000 439 ,000 ,994 439 ,204** ,000 439
,056 ,241 439 -,028 ,559 439 ,125** ,009 439 1 , 439 ,195** ,000 439 -,067 ,162 439 -,009 ,844 439
,041 ,388 439 -,111* ,020 439 ,613** ,000 439 ,195** ,000 439 1 , 439 -,243** ,000 439 -,019 ,697 439
,007 ,885 439 -,143** ,003 439 ,000 ,994 439 -,067 ,162 439 -,243** ,000 439 1 , 439 ,695** ,000 439
,078 ,104 439 -,248** ,000 439 ,204** ,000 439 -,009 ,844 439 -,019 ,697 439 ,695** ,000 439 1 , 439
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
- 97 -
7.2 Correlations
The correlations between the dependent variable, independent variables, and control variables in Table 7.2 show the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables. For this research, they serve as indication for the regression analyses later on. Important to add is that the various motivational theories are not represented in one single construct. This is because the motivational theories are too different and therefore it would be illogical to combine them in one single construct. Next, the following part deals with the assumptions needed for using a regression analysis.
7.3 Regression assumptions
In this part, the assumptions of the regression analyses of this research are presented. There are several regression assumptions that need to be met in order to run a proper regression. The first is about the central limit theorem, which explains that if the sample size is large, then the sampling distribution is approximately normal, even if the sampled population is not normally distributed (Bowerman and O'Connell, 2003). This research has two samples that are large enough to pass this assumption. The sample of the call centre agents contains 207 respondents and the sample of the nurses consists of 232 respondents. The independence assumption is the second assumption in regression analyses. Independence is usually violated in time series but it can also occur in cross-sectional data. For this research, the possible violation of independence would lie in the fact that there could be clusters within the samples. These clusters would be the different firms. To clarify this, one firm could have more older employees than the other firms. One way to check this is to make dummy variables of the control variables and to run a regression where the constructs of satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation function as dependent variable. When a dummy variable is significant this means that there could be violation of independence. This occurred only once, namely with the dummy gender on intrinsic motivation. Still this could bias the results a bit. The third assumption in regression analyses refers to the concept of normality. This can be checked with histograms of the dependent and independent variables, represented in Appendix A on page 166. One can see that the normal curves are slightly skewed to the right, indicating a possible violation of the normality assumption. However, when examining the skewness tests and QQ plots in SPSS (depicted in Appendix A), there is no real indication
- 98 -
that the normality assumption is violated. The last and most important assumption refers to the concept of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity refers to a too high interdependence between the independent variables in a research (Blumberg et al., 2005; Bowerman and O'Connell, 2003). Several methods can check for multicollinearity, like correlations, factor analysis, and variance inflation factors. For correlations, several researchers, like (Hair et al., 2003), use correlations of 0.7 and higher as indications of possible multicollinearity between variables. Although the variables do not give correlations above 0.5, the variance inflation factors (VIF) test is used to make sure that there is not any multicollinearity in this research. With this test, multicollinearity exists when the tolerance levels of the variables are smaller than 0.1. The formula used for the VIF tests is: VIF = 1 / Tolerance (= R2). When the VIF is above 10, there is an indication for multicollinearity. An average tolerance level of higher than 1 indicates multicollinearity as well. Appendix A (on page 168) shows the VIF scores of the variables. Important to add is that the constructs of the motivational theories are included as well to see whether they show multicollinearity between them. Fortunately, all variables give VIF scores between 1.1 and 1.8 so the assumption of multicollinearity is not violated. Next, the results of the hypotheses will be presented. As already depicted before, this research can be separated into two parts, namely an explanatory part (hypotheses 1-8) and an exploratory part (hypotheses on motivational theories).
7.4 Testing hypotheses
7.4.1 Hypothesis 1
When looking at the results table of SPSS in Appendix B on page 169 for testing the first hypothesis, there is an explanation needed in order to understand the results. The left part focuses on assessing the homogeneity of variance between the populations. If the p-value is less than 0.05, the Levenes test depicts that the variances between the populations are not equal. This holds that one should look in the row of equal variances not assumed to find the answer to the first hypothesis. If one would find the related p-value of the appropriate row (equal variances or not) in the right part of the table, one can conclude what the answer to the hypothesis will be. If the p-value is below 0.05, the null hypothesis can be rejected and the means of the two populations are significantly different from each other. When one looks at the table of hypothesis 1a and 1b, one can see, in the column of the Levenes test, that both
- 99 -
hypotheses can assume equal variances assumed (.145 and .899 respectively). Then, staying in the appropriate rows, one can see that both of the related p-values are .000, indicating that both null hypotheses can be rejected. This means that call centre agents working in the private service sector are more extrinsically motivated and less intrinsically motivated than nurses working in the public service sector.
7.4.2 Hypotheses 2 and 3
The second hypothesis investigated the relationship between extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. When one looks at the results of the regression run to test this hypothesis in Appendix B, it can be seen that the B (unstandardized coefficients) is -.134 and with a significance level of .005 and therefore the null hypothesis (there is no relation between extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction) can be rejected. From this table, one can see that extrinsic motivation is negatively related to job satisfaction. The third hypothesis investigated the relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. When reviewing the regression table in Appendix B, the B is .515 and has a .000 significance level indicating that the null hypotheses (there is no relationship between the two constructs) can be rejected. The results show that there is a significant positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. The grouping variable (nurses-call centre agents) has a p-value of .946 and therefore there is no significant difference between nurses and call centre agents concerning the relationships of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction.
7.4.3 Hypotheses 4 and 5
The fourth and fifth hypothesis investigated the relationships between extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction respectively. The results of the regressions run are presented in Appendix B. The fourth hypothesis assumed a null hypothesis that there is no difference between call centre agents and nurses concerning the effect of extrinsic motivation on job satisfaction. One can see in the row of the interaction variable (extrinsic motivation * group) that the B is rather small (.076) and that the p-value is .417. Therefore, the null hypotheses (there is no difference between the groups) cannot be rejected. Regarding the fifth hypothesis, one has to look at the row of the interaction variable (intrinsic motivation * group). The B shows a value of .192 and a p-value of .089. Thus, the
- 100 -
null hypothesis can be rejected (only at a 10% significance level) indicating that the effect of intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction is stronger for call centre agents than for nurses.
7.4.4 Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8
Hypothesis 6 tested whether there was a difference in satisfaction between call centre agents working in the private service sector and nurses working in the public service sector. For testing this hypothesis, an independent t-test is used. When one is interested in general satisfaction between the two groups, an independent t-test is sufficient. When one is interested in understanding why (what the reasons are), a regression analysis is needed. From the various items that make up the construct of satisfaction, only two of seven items indicate a significant difference between the nurses and call centre agents. Satisfied with ones job (question 16) and job security (question 19) indicate that nurses score higher than call centre agents. For both questions, one has to look in the lower row and one can find a p-value of .000 in Appendix B. Furthermore, an independent t-test has been conducted to check whether there is a difference in the computed construct of satisfaction between the two groups. When checking the lower row of the construct, (equal variances not assumed), there is p-value of .000, indicating that there is a significant difference between the two groups. In this case (when looking at the means of groups), nurses are more satisfied than call centre agents.
As with hypothesis 6, an independent t-test is needed for hypothesis 7. When checking the descriptives and independent t-tests with the dummies of the control variables, one gets a clear indication what the demographics of the two samples are. One can see that there is no clear significant difference in gender between nurses and call centre agents (p-value of .303) and therefore the null of hypothesis 7A cannot be rejected. Concerning a difference in age, two out of three categories (dummy variables) show no significant difference between the two groups. However, when one takes into account the reference category (older than 46), one can see that there is a difference in demographics between nurses and call centre agents. In this case, nurses are older than call centre agents (there are significantly more call centre agents in the youngest category and significantly more nurses in the oldest category). Therefore, the null of hypothesis 7B can be rejected. Concerning hypothesis 7C, whether nurses have a higher educational level than call centre agents, one can see in the descriptives that especially for HBO nurses score enormously higher than call centre agents. This can also be seen in the
- 101 -
independent t-tests on the dummy variables (p-values of .000, .014, .042, and .000). Therefore, the null of hypothesis 7C can also be rejected indicating that nurses have a higher educational level than call centre agents. Hypothesis 7D deals with tenure (number of years one is working at a specific company). When one looks at the descriptives and the independent t-tests (and the reference category of the dummy variable tenure), one can see that the p-values are reasonably significant (.000, .004, .059 respectively). Together with the reference category, this indicates that the null hypothesis can be rejected, which means that nurses, compared to call centre agents, stay longer at the same company. Hypothesis 7E is about the type of contract an employee has and whether there is a difference between the two samples concerning the type of contract. In the independent t-test table one can see that relevant p-value is .000, indicating that the null hypothesis can be rejected. In other words, nurses have more full time contracts than call centre agents. Regarding hypothesis 7F (whether nurses have more full time jobs than call centre agents), one can see in the same table that this null hypothesis can also be rejected (p-value is .000). Thus, there are more nurses with full time jobs than call centre agents.
For hypothesis 8 (A-F), a regression has been run with the dummy variables of the control variables and the interaction variables related to them. When looking at the regression tables in Appendix B, one can see that the first table has no significant p-values. This indicates that the various dummy variables show no significant differences from their reference categories. All dummy variables have the highest category of the construct set as their reference category. Although no significant values have been found, the directions of the variables will be explained. Concerning gender, the direction of the B is as expected. The number -.057 indicates that satisfaction is higher for women than for men. Concerning age, the directions of the three Bs (-.110, .057, .029) show some mixed results. As the categories are compared to the highest reference category (in this case the oldest age category: over 46 years), one can say that the older employees are more satisfied than the youngest group of employees. Regarding educational level, one can see that the highest category (university level) is the most satisfied with the exception of LBO category. The expectations were that the employees with the highest educational level would be the most satisfied. When looking at the Bs of tenure (-.048, -.010, and -.017), one can see that those are confirming the expectations. The employees with the highest tenure are indeed the most satisfied. Strangely, when examining the B of full time/part time contract (.053), the employees with a part time contract are the most satisfied, which is contradicting the expectation. The last B (-.071) - 102 -
confirms the expectation that employees with a full time job are more satisfied than employees with a part time job. However, as depicted above, none of the results was found significant. Therefore, the null hypotheses of hypotheses (8A-F) regarding the effects of one of two groups on a category can therefore not be rejected.
The interaction variables indicate whether there is a difference between the two groups regarding a specific category. This indicates that there is no significant difference between the two groups. Only one dummy of a construct shows a significant difference (interaction variable between tenure dummy 2 and group with a p-value of .025). This would indicate that for this category, the call centre agents have a greater effect on satisfaction.
7.4.5 Hypotheses of motivational theories
The hypotheses on the various motivational theories check whether the motivational theories have a significant influence on the constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and they check whether one of the two groups (nurses or call centre agents) has a greater impact on this relationship. As mentioned before, each construct of a motivational theory (expectancy and attribution theories have two constructs as result of the factor analyses) is used in four regression analyses to investigate its affect. The important numbers (the Bs of unstandardized coefficients and their significance levels) of these regressions are represented in Table 7.3 on page 105. The entire regression tables are depicted in Appendix B (page 169 and further). Next to the information whether the motivational theories have a significant (positive/negative) influence on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, one can also see whether they have a stronger effect on intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. Again, one has to look at the Bs and the significance levels. The two columns on the left (in Table 7.3), under the headings of extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation, depict whether the construct of a motivational theory is related to one of the two constructs. When the B in one of these two columns is negative, this would indicate that the construct of a motivational theory is negatively related to either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. When the B is positive, the construct is positively related to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. In the third and fourth column, the B represents something different. If the B is negative, this means that the motivational theory construct is better suited for the first group under investigation, in this case the nurses. Is the B positive, the theory is better applicable to call center agents.
- 103 -
Concerning the equity theory, one can see that the influence of the theory is only significant on extrinsic motivation. Moreover, there is no significant difference between call centre agents and nurses concerning the influence of the equity theory on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. For the expectancy theory constructs, the regressions show that both constructs do have a significant influence on both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, only the second construct shows a significant difference on the relationship of the expectancy theory and extrinsic motivation between the two groups. Concerning the relationship between extrinsic motivation and the expectancy theory, call centre agents score, as expected, higher (.123) than nurses.
Next, the goal setting theory has a significant influence on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation but none of the groups has a higher influence on either of them. Regarding the attribution theory, mixed results have been found. Concerning the first construct, the attribution theory only seems to have a positive influence on extrinsic motivation but no significant relationship has been found been the attribution theory and intrinsic motivation. However, concerning the relationship between extrinsic motivation and the attribution theory, call centre agents seem to have a higher influence on this relationship than nurses. For the relationship between intrinsic motivation and the theory, nurses seem to have a higher influence than call centre agents (for = 0.1). Strikingly, the second construct shows different results. First, the attribution theory seems to have a significant negative relationship with extrinsic motivation but a positive relationship with intrinsic motivation as well. However, with the second construct, there seems to be no difference between nurses and call centre agents about their influence on the relationships.
Theory X and Y appears to have a significant positive effect on extrinsic motivation and a negative effect on intrinsic motivation and the nurses have a stronger influence on the relationship between theory X and Y and intrinsic motivation. For the cognitive dissonance theory, only a small significant negative effect (at a 10 percent significance level) has been found on intrinsic motivation.
The regression results for the investment model are a bit contradicting as well. The investment model shows a significant negative relationship with extrinsic motivation while showing a significant positive relationship with intrinsic motivation.
- 104 -
Last, the cognitive evaluation theory does not appear to have an influence on extrinsic or intrinsic motivation but regarding the relationship between the cognitive evaluation theory and intrinsic motivation, the theory is better applicable to nurses than to call centre agents. Logically, further research is needed to investigate this relationship between the cognitive evaluation theory and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Naturally, the same holds for the other motivational theories included in this paper.
Table 7.3
Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation Interaction group with extrinsic motivation Interaction group with intrinsic motivation
Regressions Ext. mot. = b0 + Int. mot. = b0 + Ext. mot. = b0 + Int. mot. = b0 + theory + b1*mot. theory + b1*mot. theory + b1*mot. theory + b2*group + b2*group + b3*ext. b2*group + b3*int. b2*group + b1*mot. mot.*group + Hypotheses Q (equity) X1 (expectancy 1) X2 (expectancy 2) G (goal setting) A1 (attribution 1) A2 (attribution 2) T (theory x and y) D (cognitive dis.) I (investment mod.) E (cognitive evalu.) B (unstand. coeff.) .142*** .074*** .118*** .104*** .047** -.105*** .058*** .013 -.064** .034 B (unstand. coeff.) .008 .025** .061** .054*** .016 .072*** -.091*** -.022* .126*** -.002 B (unstand. coeff.) -.070 .038 .123** -.001 .078** .004 .039 .010 -.097* .019 mot.*group + B (unstand. coeff.) -.056 -.022 .079 -.000 -.055* .042 -.073*** .006 .071* -.129***
* : = 0.1, ** : = 0.05, *** : = 0.01 (all two-tailed)
This chapter showed the descriptives of the data from the samples of the nurses and call centre agents. Moreover, correlational tests, independent t-tests, and regression analyses have been conducted to investigate the hypotheses constructed for this research. The next chapter will discuss the findings of this study.
- 105 -
Chapter 8: Discussion and conclusion
This chapter deals with discussing the research findings of the study conducted. First, there will be a review of the problem statements of this research. Next, the theoretical and empirical findings of the various motivational theories included in this research will be addressed followed by implications for academic literature and practice. Last, a general conclusion will be provided.
8.1 Addressing the problem statements
The goals of this study have been to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the link of several theories of motivation with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. More and more firms are realizing the importance of having motivated and satisfied employees. Originating from the ancient Latin verb movere, motivation is what drives individuals to do what they do (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). Employees that are motivated to work long and hard will produce more than employees that are not motivated (Daniels and Radebaugh, 2001). Motivation can be further divided into several types of motivation. In the literature, authors make the distinction between the two constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the motivation to do something for its own sake, for the pure enjoyment of the activity itself (Hennessey and Amabile, 2005). Extrinsic motivation is the motivation to do something in order to obtain some external goal or meet some externally imposed constraint (Hennessey and Amabile, 2005).
Satisfaction is related to motivation but is considered to be a different construct. Job satisfaction is an affective or emotional response toward a variety of aspects on an employees job (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). On the one hand, it is possible for employees to be satisfied but not to be motivated at all. On the other hand, an employee can be motivated to perform but totally not be satisfied with the current situation at a particular firm. As mentioned in the chapters on motivation and satisfaction, many authors acknowledge the link between the two concepts but have trouble defining and clarifying it. This link is even harder to find between the two concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. This study tried to clarify the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction and to apply it
- 106 -
Discussion and conclusion
to two different groups in different sectors. For the public service sector, nurses have been chosen while for the private service sector call centre agents have picked. The central questions is this paper were therefore:
What is the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the one hand and job satisfaction on the other hand and the possible moderating variables influencing this relationship in two different sectors, namely men and women working as a nurse in hospitals (public service sector) and men and women working in call centres (private service sector)? Furthermore, what is the relationship between several motivational theories, included in this research, with the constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?
Many authors have written about the link between job satisfaction and motivation (like Drake and Mitchell, 1977, Philips and Freedman, 1984, Kinicki et al., 2002, Timmreck, 2001, and Kavanaugh et al., 2006). In the literature, one can see that total motivation consists of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. This distinction has also been made in this research paper. However, there has been strikingly little literature on the link between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. This paper tried to investigate the relationship and to shed a new light on the constructs. As can be seen in the correlation table (Table 7.3) in the chapter of data analyses and results, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are negatively correlated to each other. This backs up the original ideas of Deci (1971; 1972), Deci and Ryan (1985) and others, that extrinsic motivation can have harmful effects on intrinsic motivation and one needs to be careful with implementing rewards that try to enhance this type of motivation. As can be read in the chapter of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, there are several types of rewards that have an influence on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. This research found a relationship between job satisfaction on the one hand and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the other hand. Both motivation constructs have a significant relationship with job satisfaction. When examining the direction of the two constructs, it becomes clear, as expected, that intrinsic motivation has a positive influence on job satisfaction while extrinsic motivation has a negative impact.
Although there are significant differences between the two groups under investigation in this research (call centre agents and nurses), there are no significant effects of either of the two groups on the relationship between extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Important to add is that any difference between the two groups could also be the result of the influence of the - 107 -
sector the employees are working in, next to the employees themselves. Call centre agents have a greater influence on the relationship between extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction but the relationship is not significant. For the relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction (only at a 10 percent significant level though), the conclusion is that call centre agents have a greater effect on this relationship. In other words, nurses have a smaller influence on the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation than call centre agents. One could also say that the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation is better applicable to call centre agents. This is contrasting the expectations of this research. Expected was that nurses would have a greater impact on the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation while call centre agents would have a greater effect on the relationship between job satisfaction and extrinsic motivation.
Concerning the control variables in this study, there are significant differences between the two samples but no significant effects were found on the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. When inspecting the two samples, one can see that the nurses are more satisfied than the call centre agents. The influence of two (out of seven) items, job satisfaction and job security, is in such a manner that the difference between the nurses and call centre agents becomes significant. Especially the item of job security (certainty that one can keep his or her job) showed a high difference between the two groups. This could be due to the situational influences at the company besides a general difference in attitude of the two groups. Regarding intrinsic motivation of the two groups, nurses are clearly more intrinsically motivated than call centre agents (for only two of eight items, the differences between call centre agents and nurses were not significant). The difference is even greater for extrinsic motivation between the two groups. Call centre agents are more extrinsically motivated than nurses (for all seven items, the differences were significant). This was congruent with the expectations. Nurses were expected to be more intrinsically motivated while the call centre agents were expected to be more extrinsically motivated. As to the demographics and the organizational context of the two groups, there is no significant difference in gender between nurses and call centre agents. There are more women than men working in both groups. On average, nurses are older than call centre agents, stay longer at the same company, and are higher educated. Moreover, the relative percentage of full time contracts and full time jobs is higher among nurses. The next part discusses the findings of the research on the motivational theories. These results confirm the expectations regarding the control variables used in this research. - 108 -
8.2 Addressing the motivational theories
The various motivational theories included represent the exploratory part of this study. Current literature has not tried to link the constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to several motivational theories. With the help of factor analyses, several constructs represent the motivational theories in regression analyses to test the relationships with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The equity theory was found to have an effect on extrinsic motivation. The equity theory centers on the perceived fairness of an employee (Adams, 1963; 1965 in Harder, 1991; Robbins, 2003). Employees compare how much effort they have expended to what they receive from their jobs. Furthermore, they compare this to their colleagues, supervisors and subordinates. Since these comparisons are mostly on the things they can observe, like rewards, promotions, hours at the job, and so on, it is no surprise that there is a significant relationship between extrinsic motivation and the equity theory.
The expectancy theory holds that the strength of a tendency to act in a specific way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will have a certain consequence and on the attractiveness and value of that specific outcome to the employee (Vroom, 1964 in Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). The results confirm the expectations of the relationship between expectancy theory and extrinsic motivation. Although the expectancy theory seems to relate more to extrinsic motivation, it can function for intrinsic motivation as well. One can engage in an activity for the pure enjoyment of the perceived expectations of that activity. As expected, the expectancy theory is better applicable to call centre agents than to nurses (call centre agents score higher than nurses on extrinsic motivation).
The goal-setting theory assumes that goals are immediate regulators of human action (Locke et al., 1981). Specific goals lead to increased performance and difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than easy goals (Locke, 1968 in Robbins, 2003). Being related to the expectancy theory, goal-setting setting is expected to show some relation with extrinsic motivation. However, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1994) link goal setting also to intrinsic motivation. The results of this study confirm the expectations. Goal-setting theory has both a significant positive influence on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
The attribution theory suggests that when employees look at the behaviour of their colleagues at work, they try to determine whether this behaviour was internally or externally triggered - 109 -
(Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). The results were very mixed regarding the relationship between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. One construct (the first attribution theory construct: contribution) suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between the theory and extrinsic motivation and the other construct (the second attribution theory construct: salary) suggests a strong positive relationship with intrinsic motivation. Concerning the relationship with extrinsic motivation, the attribution theory is better applicable for call centre agents than for nurses.
Theory X explains that employees dislike work and will avoid work whenever they can, that employees must be threatened with punishment in order to make them work, that employees need and want direction and guidance, that employees have little or no ambition, and that they are only interested in security (McGregor, 1960 in Robbins, 2003). Theory Y holds a far more positive view on employees. When looking at the assumptions of theory X and Y, one could say that theory X is more related to extrinsic motivation and theory Y more to intrinsic motivation. The questions in the questionnaire were asked from the viewpoint of theory X. This can be seen in the results as well. Theory X (and Y) shows a clear positive relation to extrinsic motivation and a negative relation to intrinsic motivation. Moreover, the theory is better suited for nurses than for call centre agents, which is contradicting the expectations of the previous relationships found between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the theory. Theory X was expected to be better applicable to extrinsic motivation and therefore also to call centre agents.
Another theory included in the study is the cognitive dissonance theory. This theory states that dissonance is a psychological state of tension, which individuals are motivated to decrease because of the discomfort it brings (Festinger, 1957 in Robbins, 2003). Only at a ten percent significance level, the theory seems to be related to intrinsic motivation. Clearly, this would need further research.
The investment model is about how an employee evaluates his or her job, mainly to the extent that the job offers high rewards and low costs (Rusbult and Farrell, 1983). Seemingly related to the equity theory, the investment model should be related to extrinsic motivation. However, the results show that the theory is negatively related to extrinsic motivation while positively related to intrinsic motivation. An explanation for these findings might be that the rewards and costs can be viewed as intangible as in romantic relationships. Employees might evaluate - 110 -
their jobs in terms of whether they enjoy it, whether the job is challenging, whether the workplace is fun to work at, and so on, than merely to compare how much hours they work to how much salary they receive. The last motivational theory, cognitive evaluation, shows no significant relationship with either extrinsic motivation or intrinsic motivation, but seems to be better applicable for nurses than for call centre agents. The next part focuses on implications of this research for academic literature and managerial practice.
8.3 Implications
8.3.1 Implications for academic literature
As described before, motivation can be separated into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Most research on job satisfaction and motivation elaborates on either of the two constructs and many authors agree that the two constructs are at least weakly correlated to each other. A gap in current academic literature is the coverage of the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. It is clear that there is not much (if any) literature on these relationships in the call centre industry and the health care industry. This study acknowledges the negative relationship between extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. This could suggest that certain (extrinsic) rewards indeed undermine intrinsic motivation. In addition, both constructs have a significant effect on job satisfaction, as expected. Intrinsic motivation has a positive effect on job satisfaction while extrinsic motivation has a negative effect. Important to add is that different types of professions and/or different sectors (public versus private) might have an influence on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Another gap that this study was aiming at is the link between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and motivational theories. Although there was some coverage, this study tries to extend current literature. Future research could focus on investigating the influence of other motivational theories on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction.
8.3.2 Implications for managerial practice
In general, managers are to some extent aware of the possible impact that the constructs of motivation and job satisfaction can have on the performance of employees in the company. - 111 -
Likewise, most have some idea what the difference is between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how these types of motivation influence satisfaction and performance. A critical issue for managers is to understand how these types of motivation (and the usage of rewards) influence behaviour of their employees. From the debate of the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, it is clear that some extrinsic rewards do have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. From this study, one can see that extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation are negatively correlated and that extrinsic motivation has a negative impact on job satisfaction. Clearly, managers need to be careful with implementing (extrinsic) rewards. As can be read in the chapter of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, managers have to try to avoid contingent rewards, expected rewards, and tangible rewards. In addition, intrinsic motivation has a longer lasting effect than extrinsic motivation (Frey and Jegen, 2001). Focusing on intrinsic motivation seems to be the smartest thing to do for managers. If managers do want to make use of rewards, it would be wise to focus on rewards that have a positive impact on intrinsic motivation.
Another aspect that managers need to consider is the type of industry they are working in. As can be seen in this research, dissimilarities in intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and job satisfaction can result from differences in the nature of profession, differences in the type of industry, whether a company is a private or public firm, differences in organizational context and environmental conditions, and so on. These aspects can be seen in the study conducted on call centre agents and nurses. Nurses seem to be more satisfied, more intrinsically motivated, and less extrinsically motivated than call centre agents. The fact that none of the control variables was found significant in this research does not hold that demographic and organizational aspects such as gender, age, tenure, educational background, type of contract, type of job, and so forth, will not have an impact on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Managers working in either of these two sectors have to consider these facts when implementing rewards and, in general, when they want to motivate the employees in their companies. There is also a difference in job requirement. A fact is that almost everyone can work in a call centre as a call centre agent but working in a hospital as a nurse requires some educational certificates. Of course not everyone can work at a call centre, there are still some requirements like being customerfriendly, having a good voice, being representative, and so forth. Therefore, the results concerning the difference concerning education between the two groups was not surprising. Nurses have, on average, more educational certificates than call centre agents. - 112 -
Furthermore, managers have to take into account the possible impact of the various motivational theories on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Although only a couple motivational theories were selected from an extensive list, almost all of them had some impact on at least one of the types of motivation. Of the eight motivational theories selected for this research, the only theory that did not have a significant influence on intrinsic or extrinsic motivation is the cognitive evaluation theory. Therefore, managers have to consider the possible influences of motivational theories on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation when they want to motivate colleagues and employees. Managers need to understand that motivation is composed of extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation and that several aspects of motivational theories have an influence on these constructs.
8.4 Conclusion
This study has shown the importance of motivation and job satisfaction in the work environment. When investigating the relationship of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction in the public and the private service sector, this research has come to similar conclusions to what other authors have found. Undoubtedly, extrinsic motivation can have the possibility to harm intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Intrinsic motivation is found to be positively related to job satisfaction. Therefore, companies have to be careful how to implement reward systems for their employees. If they do decide to use rewards in order to increase performance, it would be the most fruitful if they focus on rewards that enhance intrinsic motivation or at least do not harm intrinsic motivation. Call centre agents are clearly more extrinsically motivated than nurses and less intrinsically motivated. Moreover, one can see that nurses are more satisfied than call centre agents. This difference was mainly due to two items, namely satisfaction with the job and job security. The differences between call centre agents and nurses in intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and satisfaction could be due to being employed in a different sector. An example could be that the difference in job security between the two samples results from a dynamic and competitive environment the call centres are facing compared to a relative stable environment the hospitals are situated in. Call centres and hospitals experience relatively high turnover rates and logically, creating motivation and satisfaction among their employees remains critical in their sectors. Concerning the relationship between intrinsic motivation and job
- 113 -
satisfaction, the conclusion is that call centre agents have a greater effect on this relationship than nurses. One could also say that the relationship between job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation is better applicable to call centre agents.
Clearly, the influence of motivational theories on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is significant as well. Although the number of theories used in this paper is relatively small compared to the total number of motivational theories available in the academic literature, its influence should not be underestimated. Several theories have showed significant correlations with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The underlying thoughts and psychological processes that come along with those motivational theories should be used to the best of managerial capabilities to benefit from them. Obviously, having motivated employees can result in having satisfied employees. Satisfaction is the key to decrease turnover rates and to attract new employees. It is when employees cannot get any satisfaction, they start singing (, and leave).
- 114 -
Chapter 9: Limitations
During this research, it was attempted to generate a trustworthy analysis of the several theories and data. Although the results and conclusions presented extend current literature on job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, every research conducted has limitations to reflect on. These limitations however, can be used as directives for future research on this topic.
The first limitation of this research is about the availability of resources for this research. Due to time and financial constraints, the two samples, one of the public service sector and one of the private service sector, generated only 439 respondents spread over five entities (two call centres and three hospitals). Although the number of respondents in this research is beyond acceptable, the external validity of this research would increase when there would be more respondents in the two samples.
Secondly, the samples used for this research follow the principles of convenience sampling. Convenience sampling falls under the heading of non-probability sampling, or non-random sampling. This means that not every member has a non-zero chance of being included in the sample (Blumberg et al., 2005). Non-probability sampling techniques decrease the precision of the results, because it is arbitrary and subjective in nature. Although convenience sampling decreases the precision and the external validity (and therefore the generalizability of the results), this was the only feasible manner in reaching respondents for this study. This is due to lack of financial, time-related, and scope-related resources, lack of cooperation from firms in especially the private industry, and lack of an appropriate statistical tool and appropriate data to select and reach suitable respondents.
Thirdly, and related to the second limitation, are the disadvantages accompanied with the usage of a survey for this research (Blumberg et al., 2005). The greatest advantages of the survey are its versatility, its relative low costs, it does not cost as much time as experiments and observations, its possibility to ask for opinions, attitudes, expectations, and so on, and it is easier to compile data with the standardized data. However, survey research suffers from several disadvantages that can have an impact on the results. The biggest disadvantage is undoubtedly the non-response error, which is typical for survey research. Non-response error holds that people refuse to take part in the research or are unable to take part in the research. - 115 -
Limitations
Unwillingness of the respondents can have several reasons. Respondents do not see any value in participating in the research, they might view the research as too sensitive and therefore too embarrassing to take part in, or they might be suspicious for the underlying thoughts of the research. Another problem that comes along with questionnaires is that respondents sometimes do not understand the question or misinterpret the question. Lastly, there are always respondents that do not take the questionnaire completely serious and try to get the survey finished as fast as possible.
The next limitation is the possible misrepresentation of the samples from the population and therefore the decrease in generalizability (external validity). No distinction has been made between the several wards of the hospitals or even the hospitals in general. From the three hospitals (Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, Maasland Ziekenhuis Sittard and Laurentius Ziekenhuis Roermond) in this research, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht is the hospital that is the most focused on educating students to nursing, doctoring, or other professions. Most nurses are working on general wards, but even between general wards there can be several differences. The same holds for the two call centres (Firm A from Heerlen and Firm B from Maastricht) involved in this research. Including the different size of the two call centres and the different sector they are targeting (distribution of medicine versus mobile network operator), there are different departments of the call centres agents available. Another possible misrepresentation of the samples compared to the population lies in the female-male ratio in the two samples. Regarding the call centre agents, the percentages vary from 58.7 percent (41.3 percent) to 67.4 percent (32.6 percent) women (men) working in the call centres (Lewig and Dollard, 2003; Taylor and Bain, 1999; Wegge et al., 2006; Zhong et al., 2006). In this research, 61 percent of the respondents is female and 39 percent is male. Concerning the nurses, the percentages of women and men vary from 64 percent and 36 percent respectively (Tummers et al., 2006), to 74-75 percent and 26-25 percent respectively (Kavanaugh et al., 2006; Zawacki and Shahan, 1995), and up to 87-92 percent and 13-8 percent respectively (Cohen and Kol, 2004; DeLoach and Monroe, 2004; McNeese-Smith, 2001; Pitcher, 2006; Savery, 1989; Tummers et al., 2006). One can see that the focus is more towards 90 percent. In this research, 69 percent is female and 31 percent is male. Therefore, the women, compared to the men in this study might be underrepresented and this might influence the generalizability of the results. However, no clear data is available on the female-male ratio in Limburg or the Netherlands.
- 116 -
Limitations
Another limitation of this research addresses the cross sectional nature of the research design. The respondents are asked to give their opinion on several topics at a single point in time, which normally limits the generalizability of the research. Since this research deals with questions that are related to emotional states such as motivation and satisfaction, respondents can give two different answers to the same question. Moreover, one cannot forget the possible influence of the work environment on this research. When a firm is experiencing tough times economically speaking and, for example, employees have to be fired, this could influence the way respondents answers certain questions like the question in this research on job security. Interesting would be to see whether the results would be the same when this would be a longitudinal study. The problem of a longitudinal study for this research lies in the fact that this could bias the respondents. Moreover, the concept of a longitudinal study was not possible for this research, because it has been conducted on an anonymous basis and no database has been made of the respondents. The surveys have been handed out to the head of each department/ward and therefore it is impossible to trace who has filled in the questionnaire.
The next limitation refers to the assumptions of the regressions used in this research. The assumptions of independence and normality are slightly violated. The dummy gender was found significant on the variable intrinsic motivation and this could bias the results somewhat. Moreover, regarding the normality assumption, one can see that the normality curve is slightly skewed in two of the three variables. Like with the independence assumption, this could bias the results found in this research. Important to add is that the assumptions and the interpretation of the results function as a rule of thumb.
The last limitation relates to the reliability and validity of the constructs used in this research. Although the reliability and validity of the constructs of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and satisfaction are acceptable for analyzing data and running regressions, they could have been higher. Regarding the various constructs of the motivational theories, it is clear that the reliability and validity of those constructs can be improved for further research. One example would be the construct of theory X and Y. The questions in the survey were both more related to theory X than to theory Y. On the other hand, this part of the research is relatively new and in its exploratory part. In combination with an increase in validity and reliability measures (this can be done by formulating more questions for each motivational
- 117 -
Limitations
theory), more motivational theories could be used to check whether they are related to the constructs of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and satisfaction.
- 118 -
References
Ambrose, M. L. and Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292.
Acorn, S., Ratner, P. A. and Crawford, M. (1997). Decentralization as a determinant of autonomy, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among nurse managers. Nursing Research 46(1), 52-58. In McNeese-Smith, D. K. (2001). A nursing shortage: Building organizational commitment among nurses. Journal of Healthcare Management, 46(3), 173.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. In Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1983). Equity theory and time: A reformulation. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 311.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. In Harder, J. W. (1991). Equity theory versus expectancy theory: The case of major league baseball free agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 458-464.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. In Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Noll (Ed.), Government and the sports business (pp. 221 -273). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. In Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1983). Equity theory and time: A reformulation. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 311. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Noll (Ed.), Government and the sports business (pp. 221 -273). Washington, DC:
- 119 -
References
Brookings Institution. In Harder, J. W. (1991). Equity theory versus expectancy theory: The case of major league baseball free agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 458-464.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Noll (Ed.), Government and the sports business (pp. 221 -273). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. In Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222. Adams, G. A., King, L. A. and King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 411-420.
Alderfer, C. (1972). Existence, relatedness, & growth. New York: Free Press.
Adler, J., Kalb, C. and Rogers, A. (1999). Stress. Newsweek, 133(24), 56.
Aiello, J. R. and Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 339353.
Alexander, J. A., Bloom, J. R. and Nuchols, B. A. (1994). Nursing turnover and hospital efficiency: An organization-level analysis. Industrial Relations, 33(4), 505.
Alexander, J. A., Lichtenstein, R., Oh, H. J. and Ullman, E. (1998). A causal model of voluntary turnover among nursing personnel in long-term psychiatric settings. Research in Nursing and Health, 21, 415-427. In Zhong, M., Siong, B., Mellor, D., Moore, K. A. and Firth, L. (2006). Predicting intention to quit in the call centre industry: does the retail model fit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3), 231-243.
Allyn, J. and Festinger, L. (1961). The effectiveness of unanticipated persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 62(1), 35-40. - 120 -
References
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185.
Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W. and Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 92-98.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A. and Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A. and Tighe, E. M. (1995). 'The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations': Correction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 580-580.
Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.
Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T. and Reznick, J. S. (1976). The undermining and enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 915-922.
Aranya, N., Kushnir, T. and Valency, A. (1986). Organizational commitment in a maledominated profession. Human Relations, 39(5), 433.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper. In Salancik, G. R. and Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 427.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. and Cameron, S. J. (2003). Nurses' job satisfaction and turnover intentions over a six-year period of hospital downsizing and amalgamation. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(14), 1607-1620.
- 121 -
References
Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory, progress and problems. In Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J. & Tannenbaum P. H. (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 527). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L. and Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 187-192.
Austin, J. T. and Bobko, P. (1985). Goal-setting theory: Unexplored areas and future research needs. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(4), 289-308.
Babin, B. J. and Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service environment: A model and test of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 77-91.
Bain, P., Watson, A., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P. and Gall, G. (2002). Taylorism, targets and the pursuit of quantity and quality by call centre management. New Technology, Work & Employment, 17(3), 170.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. . Psychological Review, 84, 191215. Bandura, A. (1977b) Social Learning Theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D. and Schwartz, J. (2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 84-93.
Bassett-Jones, N. and Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929-943.
Beltramini, R. F. and Evans, K. R. (1988). Salesperson motivation to perform and job satisfaction: A sales contest participant perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 8(2), 35.
- 122 -
References
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183-200.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social psychology, 6, 162.
Bnabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of Economic Studies, 70(244), 489-520.
Bender, K. A. and Heywood, J. S. (2006). Job satisfaction of the highly educated: The role of gender, academic tenure, and earnings. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 53(2), 253-279.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). Managing turnover strategically. Business Horizons, 25(2), 6.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. In Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429-438. Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R. and Schindler, P. S. (2005). Business research methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education UK Limited.
Boe, E. S. (1970). Job attitudes: The motivation-hygiene theory. Journal of Accountancy, 130(4), 99-101.
Boggiano, A. K. and Ruble, D. N. (1979). Competence and the overjustification effect: A developmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1462-1468.
Borkowski, N. M. and Allen, W. R. (2003). Does attribution theory explain physicians' nonacceptance of clinical practice guidelines? Hospital Topics, 81(2), 9-21.
- 123 -
References
Bowerman, B. L. and O'Connell, R. T. (2003). Business statistics in practice (third ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Box, R. C. (1999). Running government like a business. American Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 19.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What's the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97.
Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 56-71.
Brayfield, A. H. and Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 52(5), 396-424.
Brayfield, A. H., Wells, R. V. and Strate, M. W. (1957). Interrelationships among measures of job satisfaction and general satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41(4), 201-205.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press Brenner, V. C., Carmack, C. W. and Weinstein, M. G. (1971). An empirical test of the motivation-hygiene theory. Journal of Accounting Research, 9(2), 359-366.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. In Kinicki, A. and Kreitner, R. (2003). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (international ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Brief, A. P. and Aldag, R. J. (1976). Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 468-472.
Broadbridge, A. (2002). Retail managers: their work stressors and coping strategies. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 9(3), 173.
- 124 -
References
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 235-255.
Bryan, J. F. and Locke, E. A. (1967). Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 274-277.
Buelens, M. and Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 65-74.
Burns, J. E. (1967). Theory X. Industrial Management, p. 1.
Calder, B. J. and Staw, B. M. (1975). Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 599-605.
Call centers under pressure to change sweatshop image (1999). Management Today, 9.
Cameron, J. and Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423. In Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light. Kyklos, 54(2/3).
Cameron, J. and Pierce, W. D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation: Protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research, 66, 39-51. In Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light. Kyklos, 54(2/3).
Carrell, M. R. and Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 202.
Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregor's theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.
CBS-Statline. (2007a). Vestigingen naar activiteit, provincie en corop. In Download581F.xls (Ed.) (Vol. 20.1 kb). Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
- 125 -
References
CBS-Statline. (2007b). Ziekenhuizen: exploitatie, personeel, capaciteit, patinten en productie. In Download56a3.xls (Ed.) (Vol. 158 kb). Voorburg: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Chacko, T. I. (1983). Job and life satisfactions: A causal analysis of their relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 163-169.
Chiu, S.-F. and Tsai, M.-C. (2006). Relationships among burnout, job involvement, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 140(6), 517-530.
Clark, A. E. (1996). Job Satisfaction in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34(2), 189-217.
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4(4), 341-372.
Clark, A. E. and Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61(3), 359.
Clark, A. E., Oswald, A. J. and Warr, P. B. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57-81.
Clegg, C., Wall, T. and Kemp, N. (1987). Women on the assembly line: A comparison of main and interactive explanations of job satisfaction, absence and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(4), 273-287.
Clegg, C. W. (1983). Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover: A methodological critique and an empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 88-101.
Cohen, A. and Kol, Y. (2004). Professionalism and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical examination among Israeli nurses. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(4), 386-405.
- 126 -
References
Cosier, R. A. and Dalton, D. R. (1983). Equity theory and time: A reformulation. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 311.
Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (Transaction), 7(4), 499.
Crompton, J. L. (2003). Adapting Herzberg: A conceptualization of the effects of hygiene and motivator attributes on perceptions of event quality. Journal of Travel Research, 41(3), 305.
Crow, S. M., Hartman, S. J. and Henson, S. W. (2006). Satisfaction for health care employees: A quest for the holy grail? Health Care Manager, 25(2), 142-154.
Dam, K., van. (2005). Employee attitudes toward job changes: An application and extension of Rusbult and Farrell's investment model. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 253-272.
Daniels, J. D. and Radebaugh, L. H. (2001). International business. Environments and operations (Vol. 9th edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Feinberg, R. (2001). Role stress in call centers: its effects on employee performance and satisfaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(2), 23-35.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115.
Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 113-120.
- 127 -
References
Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F. and Krusell, J. (1975). Cognitive evaluation theory and some comments on the Calder and Staw critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(1), 81-85.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L. and Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642-650.
DeGroot, H. A., Burke, L. J. and George, V. M. (1998). Implementing the differentiated pay structure model. Journal of Nursing Administration, 28(5), 28-38. In McNeese-Smith, D. K. (2001). A nursing shortage: Building organizational commitment among nurses. Journal of Healthcare Management, 46(3), 173.
DeLoach, R. and Monroe, J. (2004). Job satisfaction among hospice workers. Health Care Manager, 23(3), 209-219.
Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. In Sargiacomo, M. (2002). Benchmarking in Italy: The first case study on personnel motivation and satisfaction in a health business. Total Quality Management, 13(4), 489-505.
Demoussis, M. and Giannakopoulos, N. (2007). Exploring job satisfaction in private and public employment: Empirical evidence from Greece. LABOUR: Review of Labour Economics & Industrial Relations, 21(2), 333-359.
Diener, E. and Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7(3), 181185. - 128 -
References
Drake, B. and Mitchell, T. (1977). The effects of vertical and horizontal power on individual motivation and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20(4), 573-591.
Dreikurs Ferguson, E. (2000). Motivation: A biosocial and cognitive integration of motivation and emotion. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A. and Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 509-524.
Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F. and Waller, M. A. (1994). Latent variables in business logistics research: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics, 15(2), 145172.
Duxbury, L. E. and Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 60-73.
Eberhardt, B. J. and Shani, A. B. (1984). The effects of full-time versus part-time employment status on attitudes toward specific organizational characteristics and overall job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 893-900.
Eisenberger, R. and Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166.
Eisenberger, R. and Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New findings. American Psychologist, 53(6), 676-679.
Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D. and Cameron, J. (1999a). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation--Negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 677-691.
Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L. and Cameron, J. (1999b). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1026-1040. - 129 -
References
Elliot, A. J. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 968-980.
Elovainio, M., Kivimki, M., Steen, N. and Kalliomki-Levanto, T. (2000). Organizational and individual factors affecting mental health and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis of job control and personality. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 269277.
Employee turnover costing U.S. industry billions. (2000). Warehousing Management, 7(9), 5.
Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K. and Westlund, A. H. (2004). Work motivation and job satisfaction in the Nordic countries. Employee Relations, 26(2), 122-136.
Fang, Y. (2001). Turnover propensity and its causes among Singapore nurses: an empirical study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(5), 859-871.
Farr, R. M. (1977). On the nature of attributional artifacts in qualitative research: Herzberg's two-factor theory of work motivation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(1), 3-14.
Feldman, J. M., Reitz, H. J. and Hilterman, R. J. (1976). Alternatives to optimization in expectancy theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(6), 712-720.
Ferris, K. R. (1977). A test of the expectancy theory of motivation in an accounting environment. Accounting Review, 52(3), 605.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. In Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210.
- 130 -
References
Finck, G., Timmers, J. and Mennes, M. (1998). Satisfaction vs. motivation. Across the Board, 35(9), 55.
Finlay, W., Martin, J. K., Roman, P. M. and Blum, T. C. (1995). Organizational structure and job satisfaction. Administration and Society, 27(3), 427-450. In Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K. and Westlund, A. H. (2004). Work motivation and job satisfaction in the Nordic countries. Employee Relations, 26(2), 122-136.
Fisher, C. D., Schoenfeldt, L. F. and Shaw, J. B. (1999). Human resource management (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Flora, S. R. (1990). Undermining intrinsic interest from the standpoint of a behaviorist. Psychological Record, 40(3), 323.
Florit, E. F. and Lladosa, L. V. (2007). Evaluation of the effects of education on job satisfaction: Independent single-equation vs. structural equation models. International Advances in Economic Research, 13(2), 157-170.
Frsterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 495512.
Franklin, D. (2000). Call centre employees tackle high stress levels, frustrated members and industry changes. Credit Union Management, 23(9), 24.
Freeman, R. B. (1978). Job satisfaction as an economic variable. American Economic Review, 68(2), 135.
Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of medicine. New York: Harper and Row. In Gray, D. E. (1984). Job satisfaction among Australian nurses. Human Relations, 37(12), 1063-1077.
Frey, B. S. and Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589.
- 131 -
References
Furnham, A. and Schaeffer, R. (1984). Person-environment fit, job satisfaction and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57(4), 295-307.
Gabris, G. T. and Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 33.
Gaertner, S. and Robinson, J. M. (1999). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover models. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 479.
Gardner, G. (1977). Is there a valid test of Herzberg's two-factor theory? Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(3), 197-204.
Gazioglu, S. and Tansel, A. (2006). Job satisfaction in Britain: individual and job related factors. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163-1171.
George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 318-325.
Ghinetti, P. (2007). The public-private job satisfaction differential in Italy. LABOUR: Review of Labour Economics & Industrial Relations, 21(2), 361-388.
Glasser, W (1984). Control Theory: A new explanation of how we control our lives. New York: Harper and Row. Glenn, N. D., Taylor, P. A. and Weaver, C. N. (1977). Age and job satisfaction among males and females: A multivariate, multisurvey study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 189-193.
Gray, D. E. (1984). Job satisfaction among Australian nurses. Human Relations, 37(12), 1063-1077.
- 132 -
References
Green, F. and Tsitsianis, N. (2005). An investigation of national trends in job satisfaction in Britain and Germany. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(3), 401-429.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W. and Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.
Groot, W. and van de Brink, H. M. (1999). Job satisfaction of older workers. International Journal of Manpower, 20(5/6), 343.
Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(3), 235-248.
Hackett, R. D. and Bycio, P. (1996). An evaluation of employee absenteeism as a coping mechanism among hospital nurses. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 69(4), 327-338.
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P. and Guion, R. M. (1989). Absenteeism among hospital nurses: An idiographic-longitudinal analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 424-453.
Hair, J. F. J., Babin, B., Money, A. H. and Samouel, P. (2003). Essentials of business research methods. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Harackiewicz, J. M. (1979). The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1352-1363.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Manderlink, G. and Sansone, C. (1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry: Effects of evaluation and cue value on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 287-300.
Harder, J. W. (1991). Equity theory versus expectancy theory: The case of major league baseball free agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 458-464.
- 133 -
References
Haswell, M. (2003). Dealing with employee absenteeism. Management Services, 47(12), 1617.
Haywood, H. C. and Wachs, T. D. (1966). Size-discrimination learning as a function of motivation-hygiene orientation in adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 279-286.
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 1944, 51, 358-374. In Schlenker, B. R., & Miller, R. S. (1977). Egocentrism in groups: Selfserving biases or logical information processing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(10), 755-764. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: New York: John Wiley & Sons. In Borkowski, N. M., & Allen, W. R. (2003). Does attribution theory explain physicians' nonacceptance of clinical practice guidelines? Hospital Topics, 81(2), 9-21. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: New York: John Wiley & Sons. In Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501. Henderlong, J. and Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774-795.
Hennessey, B. A. and Amabile, T. M. (1998). Reality, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. American Psychologist, 53(6), 674-675.
Hennessey, B. A. and Amabile, T. M. (2005). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior, 1-1.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, Ohio: World Publishing. In Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 119-138.
- 134 -
References
Herzberg, F., Mathapo, J., Wiener, Y. and Wiesen, L. E. (1974). Motivation-hygiene correlates of mental health: An examination of motivational inversion in a clinical population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(3), 411-419.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Synderman, B.S. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. Hesketh, B. and Shouksmith, G. (1986). Job and non-job activities, job satisfaction and mental health among veterinarians. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7(4), 325-339.
Heyes, A. (2005). The economics of vocation or `why is a badly paid nurse a good nurse'? Journal of Health Economics, 24(3), 561-569.
Heywood, J. S., Siebert, W. S. and Wei, X. (2002). Worker sorting and job satisfaction: The case of union and government jobs. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 55(4), 595609.
Hidi, S. in Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R. and Strauman, T. (1986). Self-Discrepancies and Emotional Vulnerability: How Magnitude, Accessibility, and Type of Discrepancy Influence Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:5-15.
Hillmer, S., Hillmer, B. and McRoberts, G. (2004). The real costs of turnover: Lessons from a call centre. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 34-41.
Hirst, M. K. (1988). Intrinsic motivation as influenced by task interdependence and goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 96-101.
Hollenbeck, J. R. and Williams, C. R. (1986). Turnover functionality versus turnover frequency: A note on work attitudes and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 606-611.
- 135 -
References
Hollon, C. J. and Chesser, R. J. (1976). The relationship of personal influence dissonance to job tension, satisfaction and involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 308314.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. In Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429-438. House, R. J. and Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg's dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel Psychology, 20(4), 369389.
Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (Transaction), 10(4), 713.
Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hunt, J. W. and Saul, P. N. (1975). The relationship of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in males and females. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 690-702.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D. and Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222.
Iaffaldano, M. T. and Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251-273.
Igalens, J. and Roussel, P. (1999). A study of the relationships between compensation package, work motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1003.
Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T. and Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and - 136 -
References
adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(21), 17891805.
Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J. and Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 212.
Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16.
James, D. (1998). Stress takes its toll at call centers, Business Review Weekly, 20, 87-79. In Tuten, T. L. and Neidermeyer, P. E. (2004). Performance, satisfaction and turnover in call centers: The effects of stress and optimism. Journal of Business Research, 57(1), 26-34.
Jones, E.E., & Davis, K. E., (1965). From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception. In Leonard Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (New York: Academic Press, 1965), p. 225. Jordan, P. C. (1986). Effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 405-412.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. and Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.
Judge, T. A. and Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 939-948.
Kacmar, K. M. and Ferris, G. R. (1989). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the age-job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 201-207.
- 137 -
References
Kahle, L. R. (1980). Stimulus condition self-selection by males in the interaction of locus of control and skill-chance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 50-56.
Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 119-138.
Kaplan, S. E., Reckers, P. M. J. and Reynolds, K. D. (1986). An application of attribution and equity theories to tax evasion behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7(4), 461.
Karl, K. A. and Sutton, C. L. (1998). Job values in today's workforce: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Public Personnel Management, 27(4), 515.
Karniol, R. and Ross, M. (1977). The effect of performance relevant and performance irrelevant rewards on childrens intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 48, 482-487. In Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.
Katzell, R. A., Yankelovich, D., Fein, M., Ornati, O. A. and Nash, A. (1975). Improving productivity and job satisfaction. Organizational Dynamics, 4(1), 69-80.
Kavanaugh, J., Duffy, J. A. and Lilly, J. (2006). The relationship between job satisfaction and demographic variables for healthcare professionals. Management Research News, 29(6), 304-325.
Kelley, H. H. (1967) Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine, D. (1967). Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press, 15, 192-238. In Kaplan, S. E., Reckers, P. M. J. and Reynolds, K. D. (1986). An application of attribution and equity theories to tax evasion behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7(4), 461.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107128.
- 138 -
References
Kelley, H. H. and Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501.
Kelley, H. H. and Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley. In Rusbult, C. E. and Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429-438.
Khojasteh, M. (1993). Motivating the private vs. public sector managers. Public Personnel Management, 22(3), 391.
King, J. (2003). Call centre makeovers are still not happening. Personnel Today, 2-2.
Kinicki, A. and Kreitner, R. (2003). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (international ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Kinicki, A., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A. and Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14-32.
Klein, H. J. (1991). Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy theories. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 49(2), 230.
Knoop, R. (1995). Relationships among job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment for nurses. Journal of Psychology, 129(6), 643.
Konopaske, R. and Werner, S. (2002). Equity in non-North American contexts adapting equity theory to the new global business environment. Human Resource Management Review, 12(3), 405.
Kopelman, R. E. (1976). Organizational control system responsiveness, expectancy theory constructs, and work motivation: Some interrelations and causal connections. Personnel Psychology, 29(2), 205-250. - 139 -
References
Kopelman, R. E. and Thompson, P. H. (1976). Boundary conditions for expectancy theory predictions of work motivation and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 237-258.
Kopf, J. M. (1992). Force versus force, or force and choice? An integrative model of expectancy theory. Human Resource Management Review, 2(2), 131.
Lambert, S. J. (1991). The combined effects of job and family characteristics on the job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation of men and women workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(4), 341-363.
LaPorte, R. E. and Nath, R. (1976). Role of performance goals in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 260-264.
Leach, F. J. and Westbrook, J. D. (2000). Motivation and job satisfaction in one government research and development environment. Engineering Management Journal, 12(4), 3.
Leete, L. (2000). Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(4), 424.
Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L. and Scholl, R. W. (1999). Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Human Relations, 52(8), 969-998.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D. and Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the 'overjustification' hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137.
Lepper, M. R and Henderlong, J. in Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.
- 140 -
References
Lepper, M. R., Henderlong, J. and Gingras, I. (1999). Understanding the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation--Uses and abuses of meta-anlysis: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 669-676.
Lewig, K. A. and Dollard, M. F. (2003). Emotional dissonance, emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction in call centre workers. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 12(4), 366-392.
Lewis, G. B. and Frank, S. A. (2002). Who wants to work for the government? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 395-404.
Lincoln, J. R. and Kalleberg, A. L. (1996). Commitment, quits, and work organization in Japanese and U.S. plants. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 50(1), 39-59.
Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light. Kyklos, 54(2/3).
Locke, E. A. (1968) .Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. In Austin, J. T., & Bobko, P. (1985). Goal-setting theory: Unexplored areas and future research needs. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(4), 289-308. Locke, E. A. (1968) .Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. In Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2003). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (international ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Locke, E. A. (1968) .Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. In Locke, E. A. (1978). The ubiquity of the technique of goal setting in theories of and approaches to employee motivation. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 594. Locke, E. A. (1968) .Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. In Locke, E. A. (2004). Guest editor's
- 141 -
References
introduction: Goal-setting theory and its applications to the world of business. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 124-125. Locke, E. A. (1968) .Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. In Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Locke, E. A. (1968) .Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. In Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152. Locke, E. A. (1968) .Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. In Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunette, M. D. (1976). Handbook of industrial psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1297-1349. In Perrew, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A. and Kiewitz, C. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work-family conflict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 318-326.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunette, M. D. (1976). Handbook of industrial psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1297-1349. In Tietjen, M. A. and Myers, R. M. (1998). Motivation and job satisfaction. Management Decision, 36(3/4), 226.
Locke, E. A. (1978). The ubiquity of the technique of goal setting in theories of and approaches to employee motivation. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 594.
Locke, E. A. (2004). Guest editor's introduction: Goal-setting theory and its applications to the world of business. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 124-125.
- 142 -
References
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1969). The directing function of goals in task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 35-42. In Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 19691980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152. Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M. and Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.
Lodahl, T. and Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33. In Chiu, S.-F. and Tsai, M.-C. (2006). Relationships among burnout, job involvement, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 140(6), 517-530.
Lodahl, T. and Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33. In Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 119-138.
London, M. and Klimoski, R. J. (1975). A study of perceived job complexity. Personnel Psychology, 28(1), 45-56.
Lu, L. (1999). Work motivation, job stress and employees' well-being. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(1), 61.
Lykken, D. and Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186-189.
Maidani, E. A. (1991). Comparative study of Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and private. Public Personnel Management, 20(4), 441.
- 143 -
References
Mangione, T. W. and Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 114-116.
Marquez, J. (2006). Union cites high stress at call centers in India. Workforce Management, 85(21), 14-14.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, vol. 50, 370-96. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. In Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: MacMillan.
McClave, J. T., Benson, P. G. and Sincich, T. (1998). Statistics for business and economics (seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington. McEvoy, G. M. and Cascio, W. F. (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 342-353.
McGregor, D.M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York. In Burns, J. E. (1967). Theory X. Industrial Management, p. 1. McGregor, D.M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York. In Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregor's theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460. McGregor, D.M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York. In Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2003). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (international ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
- 144 -
References
McGregor, D.M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York. In Meeker, S. M. E. (1982). Theory Y: Another look. Southern Review of Public Administration, 5(4), 500-515.
McGregor, D.M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York. In Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
McGregor, D.M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York. In Schein, E. H. (1975). In defense of theory Y. Organizational Dynamics, 4(1), 17-30. McNeese-Smith, D. K. (1999). The relationship between managerial motivation, leadership, nurse outcomes and patient. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 243.
McNeese-Smith, D. K. (2001). A nursing shortage: Building organizational commitment among nurses. Journal of Healthcare Management, 46(3), 173.
Meeker, S. M. E. (1982). Theory Y: Another look. Southern Review of Public Administration, 5(4), 500-515.
Meng, R. (1990). The relationship between unions and job satisfaction. Applied Economics, 22(12), 1635.
Mento, A. J., Locke, E. A. and Klein, H. J. (1992). Relationship of goal level to valence and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 395-405.
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L. and King, W. C. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292.
Miles, R. H. (1975). An empirical test of causal inference between role perceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 334-339. - 145 -
References
Miles, R. H. and Petty, M. M. (1975). Relationships between role clarity, need for clarity, and job tension and satisfaction for supervisory and nonsupervisory roles. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 877-883.
Miller, D. T. (1976). Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 901-906.
Miller, D. T. and Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213-225.
Miller, H. E. and Terborg, J. R. (1979). Job attitudes of part-time and full-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 380-386.
Money matters. (2006). Occupational Health, 58(11), 14-15.
Morris, J. A. and Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 986-1010.
Mueller, C. W. and Price, J. L. (1990). Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of voluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(3), 321.
Near, J. P., Rice, R. W. and Hunt, R. G. (1978). Work and extra-work correlates of life and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 248-264.
O'Reilly, C. A. and Caldwell, D. F. (1980). Job choice: The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on subsequent satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 559-565.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43.
- 146 -
References
Organ, D. W. and Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775802.
.Oshikawa, S. (1969). Can cognitive dissonance theory explain consumer behavior? Journal of Marketing, 33(4). Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Perrew, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A. and Kiewitz, C. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work-family conflict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 318-326.
Peters, L. H. and O'Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 391.
Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (Transaction), 10(2), 471.
Perry, J. L. and Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367-373.
Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W. and Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 712.
Phillips, J. S. and Freedman, S. M. (1984). Situational performance constraints and task characteristics: Their relationship to motivation and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 10(3), 321-331.
Pitcher, G. (2006). Nursing union claims low pay proves society is still sexist. Personnel Today, 2-2.
- 147 -
References
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
Porac, J. F., Ferris, G. R. and Fedor, D. B. (1983). Causal attributions, affect, and expectations for a day's work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 285-296.
Porter, L. W. and Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151-176.
Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 543-565.
Pritchard, R. D., Campbell, K. M. and Campbell, D. J. (1977). Effects of extrinsic financial rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1), 9-15.
Quick, J. C. and Quick, J. D. (1984). Organizational stress and preventive management. New York: McGraw-Hill. In Broadbridge, A. (2002). Retail managers: their work stressors and coping strategies. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 9(3), 173.
Rainey, H. G. and Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (Transaction), 10(2), 447.
Rayton, B. A. (2006). Examining the interconnection of job satisfaction and organizational commitment: an application of the bivariate probit model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 139-154.
Reinharth, L. and Wahba, M. A. (1975). Expectancy theory as a predictor of work motivation, effort expenditure, and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 520537.
- 148 -
References
Reiss, S. and Sushinsky, L. W. (1975). Overjustification, competing responses, and the acquisition of intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(6), 1116-1125.
Reiss, S. and Sushinsky, L. W. (1976). The competing response hypothesis of decreased play effects: A reply to Lepper and Greene. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(2), 233-244.
Rice, R. W., Near, J. P. and Hunt, R. G. (1980). The job-satisfaction/ life-satisfaction relationship: A review of empirical research. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 37-64.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Robie, C. R., Ryan, A. M., Schmeider, R. A., Parra, L. F. and Smith, P. C. (1998). The relation between job level and job satisfaction. Group and Organization Commitment, 23(4). In Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K. and Westlund, A. H. (2004). Work motivation and job satisfaction in the Nordic countries. Employee Relations, 26(2), 122-136.
Robison, J. (2002). Does job satisfaction really improve with age? Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 1.
Rose, E. and Wright, G. (2005). Satisfaction and dimensions of control among call centre customer service representatives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 136-160.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental shortcomings. Experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press. In Kahle, L. R. (1980). Stimulus condition self-selection by males in the interaction of locus of control and skill-chance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 50-56.
- 149 -
References
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101-117.
Rusbult, C. E. and Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429-438.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J. and Morrow, G. D. (1986). Impact of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 744-753.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F. and Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 53-78.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450461.
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M. and Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V. and Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 736-750. - 150 -
References
Salancik, G. R. and Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 427.
Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (1998). 'Reality' is complicated. American Psychologist, 53(6), 673-674.
Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.
Sansone, C. and Smith, J. L. in Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.
Sargiacomo, M. (2002). Benchmarking in Italy: The first case study on personnel motivation and satisfaction in a health business. Total Quality Management, 13(4), 489-505.
Savery, L. K. (1989). Job satisfaction and nurses. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 4(5), 11.
Schein, E. H. (1975). In defense of theory Y. Organizational Dynamics, 4(1), 17-30.
Schlenker, B. R. and Miller, R. S. (1977). Egocentrism in groups: Self-serving biases or logical information processing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(10), 755-764.
Schneider, D. S. and Vaught, B. C. (1993). A comparison of job satisfaction between public and private sector managers. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 68-83.
Schuster, J. R., Colletti, J. A. and Knowles Jr, L. (1973). The relationship between perceptions concerning magnitudes of pay and the perceived utility of pay: Public and private organizations compared. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 9(1), 110-119.
- 151 -
References
Scott, K. D. and Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 599-612.
Shah, J. Y. and Kruglanski, A. W. in Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.
Sharma, R. D. and Jyoti, J. (2006). Job satisfaction among school teachers. IIMB Management Review, 18(4), 349-363.
Shipley, D. and Kiely, J. (1988). Motivation and dissatisfaction of industrial salespeople-How relevant is Herzberg's theory? European Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 17-30.
Simon, D. and Holyoak, K. J. (2002). Structural dynamics of cognition: From consistency theories to constraint satisfaction. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 6(4), 283294.
Skinner, B. F. (1938) The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sloane, P. J. and Williams, H. (2000). Job satisfaction, comparison earnings, and gender. Labour, 14(3), 473-501.
Snyder, M. L., Stephan, W. G. and Rosenfield, D. (1976). Egotism and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(4), 435-441.
Solomon, E. E. (1986). Private and public sector managers: An empirical investigation of job characteristics and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 247259.
Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza. (2000). Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29(6), 517.
- 152 -
References
Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza. (2003). Gender differences in job satisfaction in Great Britain, 1991-2000: permanent or transitory? Applied Economics Letters, 10(11), 691.
Sparks, S. A., Corcoran, K. J., Nabors, L. A. and Hovanitz, C. A. (2005). Job satisfaction and subjective well-being in a sample of nurses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(5), 922-938.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I. and Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5(1), 51.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Steltzer, T. M., Woods, A. and Gasda, K. A. (2003). Salary survey 2003. Nursing Management, 34(7), 28-32.
Study: Super Bowl affects worker absenteeism the day after the game. (2005). New Orleans City Business (LA): Dolan Media.
Stuller, J. (1999). Making call-centre voices smile: A business case for better training. Training, 36, 26-32. In Tuten, T. L. and Neidermeyer, P. E. (2004). Performance, satisfaction and turnover in call centers: The effects of stress and optimism. Journal of Business Research, 57(1), 26-34.
Survey trio find nurses' pay is on the rise. (2006). Report on Salary Surveys, 6(4), 9-9.
Tackling absenteeism in the workplace. (2006). Management Services, 50(3), 44-45.
Tait, M., Padgett, M. Y. and Baldwin, T. T. (1989). Job and life satisfaction: A reevaluation of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 502-507.
- 153 -
References
Tang, S.-H. and Hall, V. C. (1995). The overjustification effect: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 365-404. In Henderlong, J. and Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774-795.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.
Taylor, P. and Bain, P. (1999). `An assembly line in the head': Work and employee relations in the call centre. Industrial Relations Journal, 30(2), 101.
Tetrick, L. E. and LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding, prediction, and control as moderators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 538-543.
Tett, R. P. and Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293.
Thomas, L. T. and Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15.
Thomas, K. W. (2000). Intrinsic Motivation And How It Works. Training, 37(10), 130.
Tietjen, M. A. and Myers, R. M. (1998). Motivation and job satisfaction. Management Decision, 36(3/4), 226.
Timmreck, T. C. (2001). Managing motivation and developing job satisfaction in the health care work environment. Health Care Manager, 20(1), 42-58.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposeful behavior in animals and men. New York: Century. In Klein, H. J. (1991). Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy theories. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 49(2), 230.
- 154 -
References
Trope, Y. (1975). Seeking information about one's ability as a determinant of choice among tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 1004-1013.
Tummers, G. E. R., Van Merode, G. G. and Landeweerd, J. A. (2006). Organizational characteristics as predictors of nurses' psychological work reactions. Organization Studies (01708406), 27(4), 559-584.
Tuten, T. L. and Neidermeyer, P. E. (2004). Performance, satisfaction and turnover in call centers: The effects of stress and optimism. Journal of Business Research, 57(1), 26-34.
Ubaldi, A. (1997). Denmark's focus on employee motivation & education creates ideal call centre environment. Direct Marketing, 59(12), 46.
Unscheduled absenteeism on the rise. (2005). Industrial Safety & Hygiene News, 39(12), 1010.
Van Dyne, L. and Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 692-703.
Verespej, M. A. (2000). Stressed out. Industry Week, 249(4), 30.
Vieira, J. A. C. (2005). Skill mismatches and job satisfaction. Economics Letters, 89(1), 3947.
Vieira, J. A. C., Menezes, A. and Gabriel, P. (2005). Low pay, higher pay and job quality: empirical evidence for Portugal. Applied Economics Letters, 12(8), 505-511.
Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Ferris, K. R. (1977). A test of the expectancy theory of motivation in an accounting environment. Accounting Review, 52(3), 605. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 212. - 155 -
References
Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2003). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (international ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Kopelman, R. E. (1976). Organizational control system responsiveness, expectancy theory constructs, and work motivation: Some interrelations and causal connections. Personnel Psychology, 29(2), 205-250. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Kopf, J. M. (1992). Force versus force, or force and choice? An integrative model of expectancy theory. Human Resource Management Review, 2(2), 131. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Reinharth, L., & Wahba, M. A. (1975). Expectancy theory as a predictor of work motivation, effort expenditure, and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 520-537. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. In Wahba, M. A., & House, R. J. (1972). Expectancy theory in managerial motivation. Academy of Management Proceedings, 69-70. Wahba, M. A. and House, R. J. (1972). Expectancy theory in managerial motivation. Academy of Management Proceedings, 69-70.
Wallace, C. M., Eagleson, G. and Waldersee, R. (2000). The sacrificial HR strategy in call centers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(2), 174.
Wanous, J. P. (1974). A causal-correlational analysis of the job satisfaction and performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(2), 139-144.
- 156 -
References
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L. and Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 288-297.
Ward, M. E. and Sloane, P. J. (2000). Non-pecuniary advantages versus pecuniary disadvantages: Job satisfaction among male and female. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 47(3), 273.
Ward, M. E. and Sloane, P. J. (2001). Cohort effects and job satisfaction of academics. Applied Economics Letters, 8(12), 787-791.
Warr, P. (1992). Age and occupational well-being. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 37-45.
Wegge, J. r., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., Wecking, C. and Moltzen, K. (2006). Work motivation, organisational identification, and well-being in call centre work. Work & Stress, 20(1), 60-83.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25.
Weiss, W. H. (2002). Organizing for quality, productivity and job satisfaction. Supervision, 63(2), 13.
Weissenberg, P. and Gruenfeld, L. W. (1968). Relationship between job satisfaction and job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(6), 469-473.
Wernimont, P. F. (1966). Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(1), 41-50.
Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A metaanalysis. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 101-114.
Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conflict and job-related outcomes: Some unanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13(3), 467. - 157 -
References
Williams, E. S., Konrad, T. R., Scheckler, W. E., Pathman, D. E., Linzer, M., McMurray, J., Gerrity, M. and Schwartz, M. (2000). The effects of job satisfaction and perceived stress on the physical and mental health and withdraw intentions of physicians. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1.
Witt, L. A. and Nye, L. G. (1992). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 910-917.
Wolf, M. G. (1970). Need gratification theory: A theoretical reformulation of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction and job motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1), 87-94.
Workman, M. (2003). Results from organizational development interventions in a technology call centre. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 215.
Wood, R., & Locke, E. (1990). Goal setting and strategy effects on complex tasks. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 73109). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. In Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Workman, M. and Bommer, W. (2004). Redesigning computer call centre work: a longitudinal field experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 317-337.
Wortman, C. B., Costanzo, P. R. and Witt, T. R. (1973). Effect of anticipated performance on the attributions of causality to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(3), 372-381.
Wright, B. E. (2001). Public sector work motivation: A review of the current literature model and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (Transaction), 11(4), 559.
- 158 -
References
Yoon, J. and Thye, S. R. (2002). A dual process model of organizational commitment: Job satisfaction and organizational support. Work & Occupations, 29(1), 97.
Zawacki, R. A. and Shahan, R. (1995). Who has higher job satisfaction: Male or female nurses? Nursing Management, 26(1), 54-55.
Zhong, M., Siong, B., Mellor, D., Moore, K. A. and Firth, L. (2006). Predicting intention to quit in the call centre industry: does the retail model fit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3), 231-243.
- 159 -
Appendix A
Factor analyses
Component Matrix
a
Component 1 1. I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well 2. My opinion of myself goes down when I do this job badly 5. I take pride in doing the work as well as I can 7. I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard 10. I like to look back on the day's work with a sense of a job well done 11. I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively 12. What matters most to me is enjoying what I do 15. It is important to me that my work is challenging and interesting ,564 2 -,146
,581 ,634 ,591
-,308 8,440E-02 -,442
,754 ,563 ,524
-,117 -,122 ,639
,541
,537
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted.
Component Matrix
Component 1 3. I prefer having someone set clear goals for me in my work 4. To me, success means doing better than other people 6. I am less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it 8. I am strongly motivated by the rewards I can earn 9. I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people 13. I am worried that I do not meet my targets 14. If I would get more salary, I would work harder ,576 2 -,268
,668
,239
,352 ,711 ,609 ,484 ,611
,665 -8,62E-02 -,398 -,438 ,451
- 160 -
Appendix A
Component Matrix a Component 1 16. I am satisfied with my job 17. My colleagues are great to work with 18. I can get along nicely with my supervisors 19. The job security is high in this organization 20. I am glad to work at this company 21. I am satisfied with the salary I receive Stress (satisfaction) reverse scaled => recomputed ,759 ,626 ,685 ,638 ,723 ,414 ,465 2 -7,58E-02 -,408 -,307 -2,91E-03 -3,63E-02 ,680 ,580
a Component Matrix
1 24. I will put as much into my job as I expect to get from it 25. If I work hard, I do well 26. If I do well, I will be rewarded 27. If I will receive a reward, I will like the reward
Component 2 ,579 ,797 ,646 ,450 -,643 -,167 ,323 ,659
a Component Matrix
Compone nt 1 28. I like to set difficult goals for myself 29. When the company sets goals I am more motivated to perform ,808 ,808
- 161 -
Component Matrix a Component 1 30. When something goes wrong at work, I usually contribute it to external factors 31. When things go right at work, it is because I did something right 32. If you would receive less salary, would you remain at the same job? ,815 2 9,682E-02
Appendix A
,819
1,142E-02
-8,87E-02
,995
a Component Matrix
Compone nt 1 33. Supervisors think of us as lazy, irresponsible, uncreative and unambitious 34. I only work for the salary and the rewards I receive ,784
,784
Component Matrix
Compone nt 1 35. I often disagree with things that happen at work 36. I sometimes I have to do things that are unethical to me ,816
,816
Cronbachs Alphas
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. INTMOT_1 INTMOT_2 INTMOT_3 INTMOT_4 INTMOT_5 INTMOT_6 INTMOT_7 INTMOT_8 A N A L Y S I S 1. 2. 5. 7. 10. 11. 12. 15. S C A L E (A L P H A)
I feel a sense of personal satisfact My opinion of myself goes down when I take pride in doing the work as we I feel unhappy when my work is not u I like to look back on the day's wo I try to think of ways of doing my What matters most to me is enjoying It is important to me that my work
- 162 -
Appendix A
Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = Alpha = ,7239 439,0 N of Items = 8
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. EXTMOT_1 EXTMOT_2 EXTMOT_3 EXTMOT_4 EXTMOT_5 EXTMOT_6 EXTMOT_7
A N A L Y S I S 3. 4. 6. 8. 9. 13. 14.
S C A L E
(A L P H A)
I prefer having someone set clear go To me, success means doing better th I am less concerned with what work I I am strongly motivated by the rewar I am strongly motivated by the recog I am worried that I do not meet my If I would get more salary, I would
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SATGEN_1 SATCOL_1 SATBOS_1 SATSEC_1 SATFIR_1 SATPAY_1 SATSTR_A
A N A L Y S I S
S C A L E
(A L P H A)
16. I am satisfied with my job 17. My colleagues are great to work wit 18. I can get along nicely with my supe 19. The job security is high in this or 20. I am glad to work at this company 21. I am satisfied with the salary I re Stress (satisfaction) reverse scaled =>
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. 3. MOTEXP_1 MOTEXP_2 MOTEXP_3
A N A L Y S I S 24. 25. 26.
S C A L E
(A L P H A)
I will put as much into my job as I If I work hard, I do well If I do well, I will be rewarded
Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 439,0 N of Items = 3
- 163 -
Appendix A
Alpha =
,4970
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. MOTGOA_1 MOTGOA_2
A N A L Y S I S 28. 29.
S C A L E
(A L P H A)
I like to set difficult goals for m When the company sets goals I am mo
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. MOTATT_1 MOTATT_2
A N A L Y S I S 30. 31.
S C A L E
(A L P H A)
When something goes wrong at work, When things go right at work, it is
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. MOTTHX_1 MOTTHX_2
A N A L Y S I S 33. 34.
S C A L E
(A L P H A)
Supervisors think of us as lazy, ir I only work for the salary and the
R E L I A B I L I T Y 1. 2. MOTCOG_1 MOTCOG_2
A N A L Y S I S 35. 36.
S C A L E
(A L P H A)
I often disagree with things that h I sometimes I have to do things tha
- 164 -
Appendix A
Tests for independence

Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,832 ,126 ,241 ,056 5,174E-02 ,060 1,791E-02 ,031 4,746E-02 3,017E-02 -4,69E-02 6,368E-02 ,026 ,030 ,075 ,076 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,229 ,043 ,036 ,093 ,068 -,044 ,061
Model 1
(Constant) GROUP Dummy variable gender Dummy variable age Dummy variable educational background Dummy variable tenure Dummy variable full time/part time contract Dummy variable full time/part time job
t 14,486 4,269 ,863 ,574 1,827 1,020 -,626 ,839
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,389 ,566 ,068 ,308 ,532 ,402
a. Dependent Variable: Computed sat. (total fact. sat. incl reverse stress / total numb. sat. questions)
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,428 ,098 ,231 ,044 ,132 ,047 -9,12E-03 ,024 6,715E-03 3,380E-02 3,144E-02 5,380E-02 ,020 ,023 ,058 ,059 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,276 ,137 -,023 ,017 ,095 ,037 ,064
Model 1
t 14,500 5,256 2,819 -,375 ,332 1,468 ,539 ,910
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,005 ,708 ,740 ,143 ,590 ,363
a. Dependent Variable: Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr. mot. questions)
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,810 ,117 -,509 ,052 -,104 ,056 1,527E-02 ,029 1,389E-02 3,738E-02 1,821E-02 2,144E-02 ,024 ,027 ,069 ,070 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,460 -,082 ,029 ,026 ,080 ,016 ,019
Model 1
t 32,515 -9,724 -1,864 ,528 ,577 1,364 ,262 ,305
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,063 ,598 ,564 ,173 ,793 ,761
a. Dependent Variable: Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. questions)
- 165 -
Appendix A
Tests for normality

300
200
100
Std. Dev = ,42 Mean = 1,91 0 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 N = 439,00
Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr.
60
50
40
30
20
10
Std. Dev = ,55 Mean = 3,18 N = 439,00

50 4, 25 4, 00 4, 75 3, 50 3, 25 3, 00 3, 75 2, 50 2, 25 2, 00 2, 75 1, 50 1, 25 1,
Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. qu
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 0
Std. Dev = ,52 Mean = 2,39 N = 439,00

00 4, 75 3, 50 3, 25 3, 00 3, 75 2, 50 2, 25 2, 00 2, 75 1, 50 1, 25 1, 00 1,
Computed sat. (total fact. sat. incl reverse stress / total numb. sat. q
- 166 -
Appendix A
Descriptive Statistics N Statistic Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr. mot. questions) Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. questions) Computed sat. (total fact. sat. incl reverse stress / total numb. sat. questions) Valid N (listwise) 439 Minimum Statistic 1,00 Maximum Statistic 4,38 Mean Statistic 1,9061 Std. Deviation Statistic ,41806 Skewness Statistic Std. Error ,568 ,117 Kurtosis Statistic Std. Error 2,480 ,233
439
1,29
4,57
3,1761
,55265
-,096
,117
,014
,233
439 439
1,00
4,14
2,3876
,52161
,560
,117
1,131
,233
Normal Q-Q Plot of Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / to
3,5
3,0
2,5
Expected Normal Value
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5 ,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5
Observed Value
Normal Q-Q Plot of Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total
5,0 4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0 1,5 1 2 3 4 5
Observed Value
- 167 -
Appendix A
Normal Q-Q Plot of Computed sat. (total fact. sat. incl reverse stress /
4,0 3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0 ,5 ,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5
Observed Value
Multicollinearity tests
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,963 ,271 ,364 ,056 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr. mot. questions) Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. questions) GROUP Construct equity theory (comparison: q 23) Construct 1 expectancy theory (combined = effort: q 24, 25 and 26) Construct 2 expectancy theory (reward receivement: q 27) Construct goal setting theory (combined: q 28 and 29) Construct 1 attribution theory (combined = contribution: q 30 and 31) Construct 2 attribution theory (salary: q 32) Construct theory X and Y (combined: q 33 and 34) Construct cognitive dissonance theory (combined: q 35 and 36) Construct investment model (change job: q 37) Construct cognitive evaluation theory (target increase: q 38)
t 7,234 6,486
Sig. ,000 ,000
Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF
,292
,739
1,354
2,090E-03 8,052E-02 -5,68E-02 1,404E-02
,048 ,051 ,025 ,013
,002 ,077 -,100 ,053
,043 1,591 -2,296 1,099
,965 ,112 ,022 ,272
,573 ,636 ,795 ,654
1,744 1,573 1,259 1,530
3,998E-03
,027
,006
,147
,884
,897
1,115
-1,43E-02
,017
-,038
-,856
,393
,743
1,346
1,256E-02 ,125 -2,23E-02 -6,87E-02 3,792E-02 -6,47E-02
,018 ,020 ,017 ,014 ,026 ,027
,030 ,268 -,059 -,199 ,064 -,100
,707 6,121 -1,295 -4,859 1,475 -2,424
,480 ,000 ,196 ,000 ,141 ,016
,826 ,782 ,716 ,893 ,803 ,880
1,211 1,279 1,396 1,120 1,246 1,136
- 168 -
Appendix B
Hypothesis 1
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -,5023 -,2504
F 1. I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 2,611
Sig. ,107
t -5,872
df 437
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
Mean Difference -,376
Std. Error Difference ,0641
-5,803
396,7
,000
-,376
,0648
-,5038
-,2488
2. My opinion of myself goes down when I do this job badly
1,076
,300
-4,302
437
,000
-,425
,0987
-,6187
-,2307
-4,295
428,2
,000
-,425
,0989
-,6191
-,2303
5. I take pride in doing the work as well as I can
,249
,618
-,984
437
,326
-,060
,0606
-,1788
,0595
-,979
420,2
,328
-,060
,0609
-,1794
,0601
7. I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard
8,205
,004
-2,491
437
,013
-,180
,0722
-,3218
-,0379
-2,478
420,3
,014
-,180
,0726
-,3225
-,0372
10. I like to look back on the day's work with a sense of a job well done
4,988
,026
-5,032
437
,000
-,279
,0554
-,3873
-,1697
-4,988
408,5
,000
-,279
,0558
-,3883
-,1688
11. I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively
2,613
,107
-,471
437
,638
-,026
,0547
-,1333
,0817
-,467
403,7
,641
-,026
,0552
-,1344
,0828
12. What matters most to me is enjoying what I do
,008
,930
-2,144
437
,033
-,136
,0633
-,2601
-,0113
-2,142
429,5
,033
-,136
,0633
-,2602
-,0112
15. It is important to me that my work is challenging and interesting
2,668
,103
-5,545
437
,000
-,327
,0590
-,4429
-,2111
-5,491
404,3
,000
-,327
,0595
-,4440
-,2099
- 169 -
Appendix B
t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper ,6027 ,9231
F 3. I prefer having someone set clear goals for me in my work 4. To me, success means doing better than other people Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 1,100
Sig. ,295
t 9,358
df 437
Mean Difference ,763
9,388
435,5
,000
,763
,0813
,6032
,9226
18,7
,000
9,590
437
,000
,818
,0853
,6505
,9858
9,449
384,1
,000
,818
,0866
,6479
,9884
6. I am less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it 8. I am strongly motivated by the rewards I can earn
9. I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people 13. I am worried that I do not meet my targets
14. If I would get more salary, I would work harder
Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed
2,102
,148
3,199
437
,001
,266
,0831
,1025
,4293
3,204
433,9
,001
,266
,0830
,1028
,4291
,161
,688
7,165
437
,000
,711
,0992
,5157
,9055
7,171
432,5
,000
,711
,0991
,5158
,9053
13,2
,000
3,015
437
,003
,247
,0819
,0860
,4079
3,043
436,0
,002
,247
,0812
,0874
,4064
,056
,812
5,722
437
,000
,499
,0873
,3278
,6709
5,690
418,1
,000
,499
,0878
,3268
,6719
12,8
,000
5,949
437
,000
,526
,0885
,3525
,7002
5,894
405,9
,000
,526
,0893
,3508
,7019
- 170 -
Appendix B
F Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr. mot. questions) Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. questions) Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 2,127
Sig. ,145
t -5,864
df 437
-5,808
405,004
,000
-,2259
,03890
-,30242
-,14947
,016
,899
11,903
437
,000
,5472
,04597
,45682
,63752
11,877
427,109
,000
,5472
,04607
,45662
,63772
Hypotheses 2 and 3
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,838 ,211 -,134 ,047 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. questions) Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr. mot. questions) GROUP
t 8,725 -2,855
Sig. ,000 ,005
-,142
,515 -3,65E-03
,056 ,054
,412 -,003
9,189 -,068
,000 ,946
- 171 -
Appendix B
Hypotheses 4 and 5
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2,778 ,580 -,250 ,147 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Computed extr. mot. (sum extri. mot. factors / total numb. extr. mot. questions) Computed intr. motiv. (sum of intr. mot. factors / total numb. of intr. mot. questions) GROUP Interaction variable between intrinsic motivation and grouping variable nurses/call center agents Interaction variable between extrinsic motivation and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 4,792 -1,703
Sig. ,000 ,089
-,265
,214 -,610
,183 ,353
,171 -,584
1,166 -1,730
,244 ,084
,192
,113
,480
1,707
,089
7,612E-02
,094
,203
,812
,417
- 172 -
Appendix B
Hypothesis 6
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F 16. I am satisfied with my job Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 4,874
Sig. ,028
t -6,201
df 437
-6,163
416,8
,000
-,441
,0716
-,5820
-,3005
17. My colleagues are great to work with
21,93
,000
-,936
437
,350
-,062
,0662
-,1921
,0682
-,918
367,6
,359
-,062
,0675
-,1947
,0707
18. I can get along nicely with my supervisors
13,00
,000
-1,152
437
,250
-,093
,0806
-,2513
,0656
-1,140
402,9
,255
-,093
,0814
-,2529
,0672
19. The job security is high in this organization
19,85
,000
-7,856
437
,000
-,676
,0861
-,8455
-,5071
-7,692
356,4
,000
-,676
,0879
-,8493
-,5034
20. I am glad to work at this company
1,450
,229
-,904
437
,367
-,059
,0650
-,1865
,0690
-,900
423,6
,369
-,059
,0652
-,1869
,0695
21. I am satisfied with the salary I receive
1,149
,284
-,085
437
,932
-,009
,0999
-,2049
,1879
-,085
434,6
,932
-,009
,0997
-,2045
,1874
Stress (satisfactio n) reverse scaled => recomputed
8,485
,004
,414
437
,679
,04
,092
-,142
,218
,410
409,2
,682
,04
,092
-,144
,220
- 173 -
Appendix B
F Computed sat. (total fact. sat. incl reverse stress / total numb. sat. questions) Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 11,8
Sig. ,001
t -3,79
df 437
-3,73
388
,000
-,1860
,04982
-,2839
-,0880
Hypothesis 7
t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -,1254 ,0391
F 39. What is your gender? Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 4,213
Sig. ,041
t -1,031
df 437
-1,027
424,9
,305
-,043
,0420
-,1256
,0394
4,048
,045
3,118
437
,002
,312
,1001
,1154
,5089
3,128
435,4
,002
,312
,0998
,1160
,5083
6,583
,011
5,309
437
,000
,530
,0999
,3339
,7264
5,248
397,6
,000
,530
,1010
,3315
,7287
42. How many years have you been working at this job? 43. Do you have a ?
28,94
,000
7,492
437
,000
,806
,1075
,5942
1,0169
7,412
400,7
,000
,806
,1087
,5919
1,0192
22,39
,000
-3,800
437
,000
-,175
,0461
-,2660
-,0847
-3,788
424,2
,000
-,175
,0463
-,2664
-,0844
2,324
,128
-4,178
437
,000
-,196
,0469
-,2883
-,1039
-4,175
429,8
,000
-,196
,0470
-,2884
-,1038
- 174 -
Appendix B
Hypothesis 8
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2,440 ,157 ,205 ,056 -5,71E-02 ,058 -,110 ,097 5,688E-02 ,078 2,874E-02 ,077 ,143 ,196 ,135 ,137 ,090 ,085 ,076 ,074 ,075 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,196 -,048 -,092 ,051 ,023 -,145 ,082 -,075 -,059 -,036 -,008 -,013 ,050 -,068
Model 1
(Constant) GROUP If 1 then gender is female If 1 then age 18-25 If 1 then age 26-35 If 1 then age 36-46 If 1 then education is -,205 secondary school If 1 then education is LBO ,262 If 1 then education is MBO -7,90E-02 If 1 then education is HBO -6,43E-02 If 1 then tenure is shorter -4,76E-02 than 1 year If 1 then tenure is -1,05E-02 between 1 and 3 years If 1 then tenure is -1,75E-02 between 3 and 5 years If 1 then contract is full 5,298E-02 time If 1 then job is full time -7,06E-02
t 15,510 3,654 -,980 -1,133 ,730 ,374 -1,440 1,335 -,583 -,469 -,528 -,123 -,231 ,717 -,947
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,327 ,258 ,466 ,709 ,151 ,183 ,560 ,639 ,598 ,902 ,818 ,474 ,344
- 175 -
Coefficients
a
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) GROUP If 1 then gender is female If 1 then age 18-25 If 1 then age 26-35 If 1 then age 36-46 If 1 then education is secondary school If 1 then education is LBO If 1 then education is MBO If 1 then education is HBO If 1 then tenure is shorter than 1 year If 1 then tenure is between 1 and 3 years If 1 then tenure is between 3 and 5 years If 1 then contract is full time If 1 then job is full time Interaction variable between gender dummy and group Interaction variable between age dummy 1 and group Interaction variable between age dummy 2 and group Interaction variable between age dummy 3 and group Interaction variable between education dummy 1 and group Interaction variable between education dummy 2 and group Interaction variable between education dummy 3 and group Interaction variable between education dummy 4 and group Interaction variable between tenure dummy 1 and group Interaction variable between tenure dummy 2 and group Interaction variable between tenure dummy 3 and group Interaction variable between contract dummy and group Interaction variable between job dummy and group
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2,470 ,265 ,155 ,336 -8,63E-02 ,083 7,245E-02 ,146 3,596E-03 ,099 2,777E-02 ,099 -,178 -,337 -7,02E-02 -6,42E-02 -,106 -,303 -8,52E-02 5,167E-02 -3,00E-02 6,085E-02 ,262 ,428 ,238 ,236 ,150 ,143 ,097 ,125 ,120 ,122
Standardized Coefficients Beta ,148 -,072 ,061 ,003 ,022 -,125 -,106 -,066 -,059 -,081 -,222 -,061 ,049 -,029 ,055
t 9,335 ,460 -1,037 ,495 ,036 ,282 -,680 -,787 -,295 -,272 -,706 -2,115 -,878 ,415 -,249 ,497
Sig. ,000 ,646 ,300 ,621 ,971 ,778 ,497 ,432 ,768 ,786 ,480 ,035 ,380 ,679 ,803 ,619
-,216
,208
-,144
-1,041
,298
,125
,163
,088
,763
,446
1,199E-02
,160
,007
,075
,940
-7,71E-02
,314
-,046
-,245
,806
,656
,485
,188
1,353
,177
-4,99E-02
,291
-,040
-,171
,864
-6,70E-02
,295
-,037
-,227
,821
8,352E-02
,193
,056
,433
,665
,414
,185
,249
2,244
,025
,127
,160
,059
,794
,428
-2,57E-03
,160
-,002
-,016
,987
-9,12E-02
,158
-,069
-,575
,565
- 176 -
Appendix B
Motivational theories
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,442 ,116 ,142 -,510 ,024 ,045 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,234 -,461
Model 1
(Constant) Construct equity theory (comparison: q 23) GROUP
t 29,678 5,781 -11,367
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,070 ,284 ,249 -,269 ,079 ,173 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,412 -,243
Model 1
(Constant) Construct equity theory (comparison: q 23) GROUP Interaction variable between construct equity theory (comparison) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 10,820 3,164 -1,552
Sig. ,000 ,002 ,121
-7,04E-02
,049
-,267
-1,437
,151
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,545 ,101 7,541E-03 ,228 ,021 ,039 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,017 ,272
Model 1
(Constant) Construct equity theory (comparison: q 23) GROUP
t 15,319 ,354 5,848
Sig. ,000 ,723 ,000
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,251 ,247 9,252E-02 ,418 ,068 ,151 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,202 ,500
Model 1
(Constant) Construct equity theory (comparison: q 23) GROUP Interaction variable between construct equity theory (comparison) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 5,068 1,351 2,773
Sig. ,000 ,177 ,006
-5,56E-02
,043
-,279
-1,305
,192
- 177 -
Appendix B
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,125 ,156 -,441 ,047 7,448E-02 ,012 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,399 ,263
Model 1
(Constant) GROUP Construct 1 expectancy theory (combined = effort: q 24, 25 and 26)
t 20,087 -9,292 6,134
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,634 ,366 -,789 ,232 2,087E-02 ,037 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,713 ,074
Model 1
(Constant) GROUP Construct 1 expectancy theory (combined = effort: q 24, 25 and 26) Interaction variable between construct expectancy theory 1 (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 9,916 -3,404 ,564
Sig. ,000 ,001 ,573
3,761E-02
,025
,308
1,534
,126
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,290 ,135 ,261 ,041 2,465E-02 ,011 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,312 ,115
Model 1
(Constant) GROUP Construct 1 expectancy theory (combined = effort: q 24, 25 and 26)
t 9,553 6,341 2,339
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,020
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error ,996 ,319 ,462 ,201 5,568E-02 ,032 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,553 ,260
Model 1
(Constant) GROUP Construct 1 expectancy theory (combined = effort: q 24, 25 and 26) Interaction variable between construct expectancy theory 1 (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 3,125 2,296 1,731
Sig. ,002 ,022 ,084
-2,18E-02
,021
-,236
-1,021
,308
- 178 -
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,662 ,106 ,118 -,520 ,029 ,046 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 expectancy theory (reward receivement: q 27) GROUP
t 34,631 4,039 -11,378
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
,167 -,470
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 4,045 ,221 -4,48E-02 -,805 ,087 ,152 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 expectancy theory (reward receivement: q 27) GROUP Interaction variable between construct expectancy theory 2 (reward) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 18,317 -,513 -5,315
Sig. ,000 ,608 ,000
-,063 -,728
,123
,062
,329
1,976
,049
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,407 ,090 6,144E-02 ,240 ,025 ,039 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 expectancy theory (reward receivement: q 27) GROUP
t 15,701 2,479 6,201
Sig. ,000 ,014 ,000
,115 ,287
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,652 ,188 -4,23E-02 5,830E-02 ,074 ,129 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 expectancy theory (reward receivement: q 27) GROUP Interaction variable between construct expectancy theory 2 (reward) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 8,804 -,570 ,453
Sig. ,000 ,569 ,651
-,079 ,070
7,853E-02
,053
,277
1,481
,139
- 179 -
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) Construct goal setting theory (combined: q 28 and 29) GROUP
t 26,263 6,378 -10,364
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
,263 -,427
Model 1
(Constant) Construct goal setting theory (combined: q 28 and 29) GROUP Interaction variable between construct goal setting theory (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 11,500 2,110 -2,565
Sig. ,000 ,035 ,011
,266 -,423
-8,32E-04
,033
-,004
-,025
,980
Model 1
(Constant) Construct goal setting theory (combined: q 28 and 29) GROUP
t 11,245 3,882 6,758
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
,182 ,317
Model 1
(Constant) Construct goal setting theory (combined: q 28 and 29) GROUP Interaction variable between construct goal setting theory (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 4,932 1,271 1,690
Sig. ,000 ,204 ,092
,182 ,317
-4,79E-05
,028
,000
-,002
,999
- 180 -
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,681 ,138 4,725E-02 -,527 ,019 ,046 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 1 attribution theory (combined = contribution: q 30 and 31) GROUP
t 26,742 2,548 -11,372
Sig. ,000 ,011 ,000
,107 -,477
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 4,358 ,347 -6,97E-02 -,976 ,058 ,216 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 1 attribution theory (combined = contribution: q 30 and 31) GROUP Interaction variable between construct attribution theory 1 (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 12,554 -1,201 -4,512
Sig. ,000 ,231 ,000
-,158 -,883
7,847E-02
,037
,454
2,124
,034
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,470 ,116 1,623E-02 ,233 ,016 ,039 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 1 attribution theory (combined = contribution: q 30 and 31) GROUP
t 12,667 1,038 5,956
Sig. ,000 ,300 ,000
,049 ,278
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error ,995 ,293 9,827E-02 ,548 ,049 ,183 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 1 attribution theory (combined = contribution: q 30 and 31) GROUP Interaction variable between construct attribution theory 1 (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 3,394 2,003 2,997
Sig. ,001 ,046 ,003
,294 ,655
-5,50E-02
,031
-,421
-1,763
,079
- 181 -
Appendix B
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 4,286 ,091 -,105 -,520 ,020 ,045 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,212 -,470
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 attribution theory (salary: q 32) GROUP
t 47,259 -5,218 -11,559
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 4,304 ,209 -,110 -,533 ,061 ,144 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,223 -,482
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 attribution theory (salary: q 32) GROUP Interaction variable between construct attribution theory 2 (salary) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 20,546 -1,811 -3,710
Sig. ,000 ,071 ,000
3,939E-03
,041
,018
,096
,923
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 attribution theory (salary: q 32) GROUP
t 17,768 4,229 5,439
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,560 ,177 1,246E-02 6,619E-02 ,051 ,121 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,033 ,079
Model 1
(Constant) Construct 2 attribution theory (salary: q 32) GROUP Interaction variable between construct attribution theory 2 (salary) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 8,807 ,242 ,545
Sig. ,000 ,809 ,586
4,226E-02
,035
,251
1,222
,222
- 182 -
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,508 ,152 5,791E-02 -,530 ,016 ,046 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,145 -,480
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) Construct theory X and Y (combined: q 33 and 34) GROUP
t 23,052 3,510 -11,623
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,981 ,425 -2,73E-03 -,836 ,054 ,260 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,007 -,756
Model 1
(Constant) Construct theory X and Y (combined: q 33 and 34) GROUP Interaction variable between construct theory x and y (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 9,366 -,051 -3,210
Sig. ,000 ,959 ,001
3,941E-02
,033
,305
1,191
,234
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2,320 ,123 -9,13E-02 ,200 ,013 ,037 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,302 ,239
Model 1
(Constant) Construct theory X and Y (combined: q 33 and 34) GROUP
t 18,878 -6,853 5,414
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
Model 1
(Constant) Construct theory X and Y (combined: q 33 and 34) GROUP Interaction variable between construct theory x and y (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 4,247 ,479 3,653
Sig. ,000 ,632 ,000
-7,27E-02
,027
-,743
-2,740
,006
- 183 -
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,898 ,121 1,307E-02 -,550 ,015 ,046 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive dissonance theory (combined: q 35 and 36) GROUP
t 32,192 ,856 -11,930
Sig. ,000 ,392 ,000
,036 -,497
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,994 ,319 -1,39E-03 -,618 ,047 ,213 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive dissonance theory (combined: q 35 and 36) GROUP Interaction variable between construct cognitive dissonance theory (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 12,523 -,030 -2,906
Sig. ,000 ,976 ,004
-,004 -,559
1,012E-02
,031
,077
,328
,743
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,713 ,101 -2,17E-02 ,230 ,013 ,039 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive dissonance theory (combined: q 35 and 36) GROUP
t 16,921 -1,704 5,978
Sig. ,000 ,089 ,000
-,078 ,275
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,773 ,267 -3,07E-02 ,188 ,039 ,178 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive dissonance theory (combined: q 35 and 36) GROUP Interaction variable between construct cognitive dissonance theory (combined) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 6,648 -,787 1,058
Sig. ,000 ,431 ,291
-,111 ,225
6,291E-03
,026
,063
,244
,808
- 184 -
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 4,123 ,092 -6,42E-02 -,540 ,026 ,046 Standardized Coefficients Beta -,102 -,488
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) Construct investment model (change job: q 37) GROUP
t 45,024 -2,455 -11,781
Sig. ,000 ,014 ,000
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3,787 ,203 7,743E-02 -,307 ,081 ,133 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,123 -,278
Model 1
(Constant) Construct investment model (change job: q 37) GROUP Interaction variable between construct investment model (change) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 18,686 ,960 -2,308
Sig. ,000 ,338 ,021
-9,71E-02
,052
-,326
-1,856
,064
Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,296 ,074 ,126 ,211 ,021 ,037 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,263 ,253
Model 1
(Constant) Construct investment model (change job: q 37) GROUP
t 17,425 5,925 5,680
Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,542 ,165 2,169E-02 4,054E-02 ,066 ,108 Standardized Coefficients Beta ,045 ,048
Model 1
(Constant) Construct investment model (change job: q 37) GROUP Interaction variable between construct investment model (change) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 9,366 ,331 ,375
Sig. ,000 ,741 ,708
7,140E-02
,043
,317
1,679
,094
- 185 -
Appendix B
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive evaluation theory (target increase: q 38) GROUP
t 34,398 1,192 -11,948
Sig. ,000 ,234 ,000
,050 -,497
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive evaluation theory (target increase: q 38) GROUP Interaction variable between construct cognitive evaluation (change) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 14,052 ,090 -3,210
Sig. ,000 ,929 ,001
,011 -,550
1,861E-02
,058
,068
,320
,749
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,579 ,095 -1,61E-03 ,226 ,024 ,039 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive evaluation theory (target increase: q 38) GROUP
t 16,682 -,067 5,855
Sig. ,000 ,946 ,000
-,003 ,270
Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1,006 ,235 ,180 ,634 ,072 ,158 Standardized Coefficients Beta
Model 1
(Constant) Construct cognitive evaluation theory (target increase: q 38) GROUP Interaction variable between construct cognitive evaluation (change) and grouping variable nurses/call center agents
t 4,287 2,491 4,014
Sig. ,000 ,013 ,000
,347 ,757
-,129
,048
-,624
-2,662
,008
- 186 -
Appendix C
Thesis research
Dear participant, On behalf of my final thesis at the University of Maastricht, I am conducting a research in two different employment sectors. This research is about motivation and job satisfaction in your work environment. Moreover, several questions concerning theories of motivation will be included as well. I kindly ask you to fill in the following questionnaire. Your help is crucial for conducting my research successfully and I would be enormously appreciate it. All information given will be handled anonymously and confidentially. I thank you in advance for your participation, Rudi Oudejans
- 187 -
Appendix C
Motivation
1. I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well
O Totally agree O Agree O Neither Agree nor Disagree O Disagree O Totally disagree
2. My opinion of myself goes down when I do this job badly

3. I prefer having someone set clear goals for me in my work

4. To me, success means doing better than other people

5. I take pride in doing the work as well as I can

6. Im less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it

7. I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard

8. I am strongly motivated by the rewards I can earn

9. I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people

10. I like to look back on the days work with a sense of a job well done
- 188 -
Appendix C
11. I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively

12. What matters most to me is enjoying what I do

13. I am worried that I do not meet my targets

14. If I would get more salary, I would work harder

15. It is important to me that my work is challenging and interesting

O Very Important O Important O No Opinion O Not Important O Not Important at All
Job satisfaction
16. I am satisfied with my job
17. My colleagues are great to work with

18. I can get along nicely with my supervisors

19. The job security is high in this organization

20. I am glad to work at this company

- 189 -
Appendix C
21. I am satisfied with the salary I receive

22. My work is very stressful

Motivational theories
23. I compare what I put into a job and what I get out of it to my peers
24. I will put as much into my job as I expect to get from it

25. If I work hard, I do well

26. If I do well, I will be rewarded

27. If I will receive a reward, I will like the reward

28. I like to set difficult goals for myself

29. When the company sets goals I am more motivated to perform

- 190 -
Appendix C
30. When something goes wrong at work, I usually contribute it to external factors
31. When things go right at work, it is because I did something right

32. If you would receive less salary, would you remain at the same job?
33. Supervisors think of us as lazy, irresponsible, uncreative and unambitious

34. I only work for the salary and the rewards I receive
35. I often disagree with things that happen at work

36. I sometimes I have to do things that are unethical to me

37. If I am satisfied with my job, I will be less likely to change to another job although it might pay more
38. I dislike my work more when there are more targets set by the organization
- 191 -
Appendix C
General questions
39. What is your gender?

O Female O Male

O 18 - 25 O 26 35 O 36 - 46 O Older than 46

O Secondary school O LBO O MBO O HBO O University
42. How many years have you been working at this job?
O Shorter than 1 years O Between 1 and 3 years O Between 3 and 5 years O More than 5 years
43. Do you have a ?

O Full time contract O Part time contract

O Full time job O Part time job
This is the end of this questionnaire. I thank you for your cooperation!!!
- 192 -
Appendix C
Eind scriptie onderzoek

Geachte deelnemer aan deze vragenlijst, Vanwege mijn eindscriptie op de Universiteit van Maastricht, doe ik onderzoek in twee verschillende werkgelegenheid sectoren. Dit onderzoek gaat over motivatie en werk tevredenheid in uw werk situatie. Ook zullen er een aantal vragen over verscheidene motivatie theorien in zitten. Ik vraag u vriendelijk om deze vragenlijst in te vullen. Uw hulp is cruciaal voor het met succes beindigen van mijn onderzoek en ik zou het enorm waarderen als u mij wilt helpen. Gegeven informatie wordt anoniem en vertrouwelijk behandeld. Ik dank u bij voorbaat voor uw deelname, Rudi Oudejans
- 193 -
Appendix C
Motivatie
1. Ik heb een gevoel van persoonlijke tevredenheid als ik dit werk goed doe
O Helemaal mee eens O Mee eens O Noch eens of oneens O Niet mee eens O Helemaal niet mee eens
2. Mijn mening over mezelf gaat naar beneden als ik dit werk slecht doe
3. Ik heb liever iemand die duidelijke doelen voor mij stelt op mijn werk
4. Succes betekent voor mij dat ik het beter doe dan anderen
5. Ik ben trots als ik het werk zo goed mogelijk doe als ik kan
6. Het maakt mij minder uit wat voor werk ik doe dan wat ik verdien
7. Ik voel me niet goed als ik mijn werk minder goed doe dan normaal
8. Ik ben erg gemotiveerd door de beloningen die ik kan verdienen

9. Ik ben erg gemotiveerd door de erkenning die ik kan krijgen van anderen
10. Ik vind het fijn om terug te kijken na een werkdag met een gevoel dat ik mijn werk goed gedaan heb
- 194 -
Appendix C
11. Ik probeer aan manieren te denken om mijn werk zo effectief mogelijk te doen
12. Het belangrijkste voor mij is iets te doen waar ik plezier in heb
13. Ik maak me druk dat ik de doelen van het bedrijf niet haal
14. Als ik meer salaris zou krijgen zou ik harder werken

15. Het is belangrijk voor mij dat mijn werk uitdagend en interessant is
O Heel belangrijk O Belangrijk O Geen mening O Niet belangrijk O Helemaal niet belangrijk
Werk tevredenheid
16. Ik ben tevreden met mijn werk
17. Mijn collegas zijn fijn om mee te werken

18. Ik kan het goed vinden met de mensen die de leiding over mij hebben
19. De veiligheid voor mijn baan is hoog in dit bedrijf

20. Ik ben blij dat ik bij dit bedrijf kan werken

- 195 -
Appendix C
21. Ik ben tevreden met het salaris dat ik krijg

22. Ik krijg veel stress van mijn werk

Motivatie theorien
23. Ik vergelijk hoeveel ik in mijn werk stop met wat ik er voor terug krijg en ik vergelijk dit met mijn collegas
24. Ik zal zoveel in mijn werk stoppen als ik verwacht er voor terug te krijgen
25. Als ik hard werk, doe ik het goed

26. Als ik het goed doe, zal ik beloond worden

27. Als ik beloond word, zal ik de beloning leuk vinden

28. Ik vind het fijn om moeilijke doelen voor mezelf te stellen

29. Wanneer het bedrijf doelen zet die ik moet halen ben ik meer gemotiveerd om te presteren
- 196 -
Appendix C
30. Wanneer iets fout gaat op het werk, komt het meestal niet omdat ik iets fout gedaan heb.
31. Wanneer het goed gaat op het werk, komt het vaak door dat ik dingen goed doe.
32. Als u minder salaris zou krijgen, zou u dezelfde baan willen houden?
33. Bazen/managers/leiders denken dat we lui, onverantwoordelijk, niet creatief, en niet ambitieus zijn
34. Ik werk alleen voor het salaris en de beloningen die ik ontvang

35. Ik ben het vaak oneens met dingen die op het werk gebeuren
36. Soms moet ik dingen doen die ik ethisch niet verantwoord vind
37. Als ik tevreden ben met mijn baan, dan zal het minder waarschijnlijk zijn dat ik van baan verander voor een baan die meer betaalt
38. Ik vind mijn werk minder leuk wanneer het bedrijf meer doelen stelt waaraan ik moet voldoen
- 197 -
Appendix C
Algemene vragen
39. Wat is uw geslacht?
O Vrouw O Man
40. Wat is uw leeftijd?

O 18 - 25 O 26 35 O 36 - 46 O Ouder dan 46
41. Wat voor een school heeft u afgerond?

O Middelbare school O LBO O MBO O HBO O Universiteit
42. Hoeveel jaar heeft u al deze baan?

O Korter dan 1 jaar O Tussen 1 en 3 jaar O Tussen 3 en 5 jaar O Meer dan 5 jaar
43. Hebt u een ?

O Vol tijd contract O Deel tijd contract
44. Mijn huidige baan is een

O Full time baan O Part time baan
Dit is het einde van deze vragenlijst. Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking!!
- 198 -
Appendix C
Diplomarbeitsstudie
Im Rahmen meiner Diplomarbeit an der Universitt Maastricht (ich studiere dort internationale BWL), untersuche ich zwei verschiedene Berufssektoren. Diese Studie betrifft Motivation und Zufriedenheit in Ihrem Arbeitsumfeld. Ausserdem gibt es einige Fragen bezglich mehrerer Motivationstheorien.
Ich mchte Sie freundlichst bitten diesen Fragebogen auszufllen. Das ausfllen daurt nur einige Minuten. Ihre Hilfe ist jedoch von entscheidender Bedeutung fr den erfolgreichen Abschluss meines Studiums. Gerade deshalb wrde ich Ihre Hilfe sehr schtzen. Erteilte Informationen werden absolut anonym und vertraulich behandelt.
Fr Ihre Teilnahme mchte ich mich im Voraus herzlich bei Ihnen bedanken,
Rudi Oudejans
- 199 -
Appendix C
Motivation
1. Mein Beruf verschafft mir ein Gefhl persnlicher Zufriedenheit
O vllig richtig O richtig O weder richtig noch falsch O falsch O vllig falsch
2. Mein Selbstbild nimmt ab wenn ich keinen gute Arbeit leiste

3. Ich bevorzuge es, wenn jemand mir in meinem Job deutliche Ziele setzt
4. Erfolg bedeutet fr mich, dass ich bessere Arbeit leiste als andere
5. Ich bin stolz wenn ich meine Arbeit so gut wie nur mglich erledige
6. Den Job den ich mache ist mir weniger wichtig als was ich verdiene
7. Ich fhle mich nicht wohl wenn ich meine Arbeit weniger gut mache als gewhnlich
8. Ich werde sehr motiviert durch mgliche zustzliche Belohnungen

9. Ich werde sehr motiviert durch die Anerkennung von anderen Menschen
10. Ich finde es schn zurckzublicken auf einen erfolgreichen Arbeitstag mit dem Gefhl gute Arbeit geleistet zu haben
- 200 -
Appendix C
11. Ich versuche Wege zu finden die es mir ermglichen meine Arbeit so effektiv wie mglich zu erledigen
12. Fr mich ist es das wichtigste etwas zu tun was mir Freude macht
13. Ich mache mir Sorgen das ich die Unternehmensziele nicht erreiche
14. Wenn ich mehr Gehalt bekommen wrde, wrde ich hrter Arbeiten
15. Es ist wichtig fr mich dass meine Arbeit herausfordernd und interessant ist
Zufriedenheit mit dem Beruf

16. Ich bin zufrieden mit meinem Job
17. Ich arbeite gerne zusammen mit meinen Kollegen

18. Ich verstehe mich gut mit meinen Fhrungskrften

19. Die Absicherung meines Jobs ist hoch in diesem Unternehmen

20. Ich freue mich darber in diesem Unternehmen arbeiten zu drfen

- 201 -
Appendix C
21. Ich bin zufrieden mit meinem Gehalt

22. Meine Arbeit besorgt mir viel Stress

Motivationstheorien
23. Ich stelle mein Arbeitspensum in Relation zu meinem Gehalt und vergleiche dieses mit dem meiner Kollegen
24. Ich werde genau soviel Arbeit leisten wie ich erwarte dafr wiederzubekommen
25. Wenn ich hart arbeite, mache ich einen guten Job
26. Wenn ich einen guten Job mache, werde ich dafr belohnt werden
27. Wenn ich belohnt werde, wird mir die Belohnung Freude bereiten
28. Ich setze mir gerne schwierige Ziele

29. Wenn das Unternehmen mir Ziele setzt, bin ich eher zu Leistung motiviert
30. Wenn etwas schief geht auf der Arbeit, ist das meistens nicht mein Fehler
- 202 -
Appendix C
31. Wenn alles richtig luft auf der Arbeit, ist das oft mein Verdienst
32. Wrden Sie fr weniger Gehalt den gleichen Job behalten wollen?
33. Chefs/ Manager/ Fhrungskrfte denken dass wir faul, verantwortungslos, nich kreativ, und nicht ehrgeizig sind
34. Ich arbeite nur fr das Gehalt und die Belohnungen die ich erhalte
35. Ich bin oft nicht einverstanden mit Ereignissen am Arbeitsplatz

36. Manchmal muss ich Ttigkeiten ausfhren die ich ethisch nicht vertretbar finde
37. Wenn ich zufrieden bin mit meinem Job, dann ist es eher unwahrscheinlich dass ich meinen Job wechsle fr einen besser bezahlten Job
38. Meine Arbeit gefllt mir weniger gut wenn das Unternehmen mehr Ziele setzt die ich erreichen soll
Allgemeine Fragen
39. Was ist ihr Geschlecht?

O Weiblich O Mnnlich
- 203 -
Appendix C
40. Wie alt sind sie?

O 18 - 25 O 26 35 O 36 - 46 O lter als 46
41. Was ist ihre hchste Ausbildung?

O Mittlere Reife O Berufsschule O Mittlere Berufsschule O Gymnasium O Universitt
42. Seit wievielen Jahren haben sie Ihren jetzigen Job?

O Krzer als 1 Jahr O Zwischen 1 und 3 Jahren O Zwischen 3 und 5 Jahren O Mehr als 5 Jahren
43. Haben sie ein....?

O Vollzeit-Vertrag O Teilzeit-Vertrag
44. Mein jetziger Job ist....

O Vollzeit-Job O Teilzeit-Job
Dies ist das Ende dieses Fragebogens. Herzlichen Dank fr Ihre Teilnahme!!
- 204 -

File 11432

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

File 11432

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Linking extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction and to motivational theories

93 93 98 98 99 99 100 100 101 103

106 106 109 111 111 111 113

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

160 169 187

Chapter 2: Theories on motivation

2.1 Equity theory

2.2 Expectancy theory

Figure 2.1: Major elements of expectancy theory

Outcomes (pay, recognition, other rewards)

Instrumentality (probability that performance will produce desired outcomes)

2.3 Goal-setting theory

Figure 2.2: Goal level, valence, instrumentality

2.4 Attribution theory

2.5 Theory X and Y

2.6 Cognitive dissonance theory

2.7 Investment model

2.8 Cognitive evaluation theory

Chapter 3: Job satisfaction

3.1 Job satisfaction defined

3.2 Determinants and causes of job satisfaction

Work interference with family Job satisfaction +

Value attainment + Family interference with work Life satisfaction

(Adams et al., 1996; Duxbury and Higgins, 1991)

(Perrew et al., 1999)

3.3 Correlations of job satisfaction with other variables

3.3.1 Job involvement

3.3.2 Organizational citizenship behaviour

3.3.3 Organizational commitment

Figure 3.2: Turnover model as manifest for call centre representatives

3.3.6 Perceived stress

3.3.7 Job performance

Job performance Mediators

Behavioral intentions Low performance as withdrawal Positive mood

Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), p. 390.

3.3.9 Life satisfaction

3.3.10 Mental health

Chapter 4: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

4.1 Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

4.2 Extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Figure 4.1: A taxonomy of human motivation

Perceived non contingency

Conscious valuing of activity

Hierarchical synthesis of goals

extrinsic rewards involvement or punishments

Low perceived competence Compliance / reactance Non relevance

Focus on approval from self and others Selfendorsement of goals Congruence

Perceived locus Impersonal of causality

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Figure 4.2: A means-end analysis of the self-perception of motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

4.3 The influence of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation

4.3.1 The start of the debate

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

4.3.2 Conclusions of the debate

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Subsequent intrinsic motivation