1

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In an industry workers performance is very important because it provides products and
service, which represent the basis for a company's success. Employees are a valuable
resource that may contribute in several different ways to a company's activities, provided
that the company gives them an appropriate chance (Morgan, 1997). For achieving the
success important keys are, how productive people are at work, their skills, motivation
and commitment. In order to be successful, a company needs employees who act toward
the goals of the organization and have a strong desire to remain in the company
(Molander, 1996). Such loyalty and commitment may be generated by motivation. The
aims of motivation are to increase productivity and job satisfaction. Highly motivated
persons tend to work harder and perform more effectively in their jobs than less
motivated individuals.

Managers who need to be aware of factors that motivate workers to make them perform
well, ending up with HR professionals who have to understand motivation to effectively
design and implement reward structure and systems. However, because of a complex
nature of human behavior, motivation is not easy to understand and to use. Although,
some of research suggested that money is not as potent as it seemed to be, many
companies tried to implement monetary incentives as their main tool to motivate
employees. The literature on a subject of motivation shows that there are several other
ways to motivate employees. The most well know and often cited theories can be divided
into two categories: content theories and process theories. The first group is focused on
what motivate people. It is represented by authors such as Maslow, McClelland and
Herzberg. The second category process theories, try to find out how motivation occurs.
Vroom, Adams, Locke and Latham created the most influential process theories. The
points of view presented by authors of those theories in some aspects are complementary
but in others are totally opposite. That possibly was the reason for other researchers
inspiration to conduct own studies on motivation. It resulted in a number of possible
suggestions about motivators that could play a crucial role in increasing employees
performance. Some authors (Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Lawler, 1969) indicate that job
design plays important role in shaping employees behavior while others (Roche &
MacKinnon, 1970; Allender & Allender, 1998; Lu, 1999; Tharenou, 1993; Mayfield,
Mayfield, & Kopf, 1998) suggest that leadership style and freedom given to employees
are crucial in motivating employees. Another group of researchers (Luthans & Stajkovic,
2000; Armstrong & Murlis, 2004) try to prove that recognition can be used to motivate
2

people to perform well. In fact, there are many more examples of possible motivators in
the literature on a subject of motivation.


In this multitude of possible options it is not easy to answer the question what in fact
motivates employees. The easiest way to find out is simply to ask them. There is a long
history of researches which ask employees to rank the importance of motivating factors.
In their studies they compared answers from employees coming from different cultures,
age groups, levels of organization and even from different points of time in a history.
Their results showed that there are several motivating factors that are very often ranked
high positions.


1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In order to be successful, a company has to be aware of what motivates and satisfies the
workers at work in order to stimulate them to perform their job as best as possible and to
remain in the company. A person who is satisfied with his/her work may show a higher
commitment to put efforts toward the achievement of the company's goals and will not
easily change job. However, people differ, they distinguish themselves from each other
regarding their needs, backgrounds, expectations, and individual characteristics. In other
words, what may satisfy one employee may be different from what will satisfy another, at
least in terms of the satisfaction degree. Moreover, some needs may change over time,
getting stronger or weaker. How can the company know how to motivate whom in the
right way?

The knowledge about similarities and differences in the motivation of employees may
make it easier for the company to motivate them and to generate organizational
commitment. Thereby, the consideration of individual characteristics such as age, gender,
work area, and years a person has been working in the company may provide useful
information A group of workers sharing the same individual features may have the same
needs and expectations toward work and may be satisfied in the same way. Information
about the extent to which certain factors of motivation and job satisfaction are present at
work and information about the importance, which is attributed to those factors by the
employees, may offer valuable clues to the field of motivation. A comparison of this data
may reveal factors whose enhancement may cause higher motivation and job satisfaction
of the work force.



3

1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER

The structure of this thesis paper can be broken down into four general parts. The first
part is an introduction. It contains basic information about theoretical foundations of the
thesis and the importance of the topic of motivation. The limitations of the study are
concerned at the end of the introductory part.

The second part is a theoretical background of the thesis. It is based on findings from the
literature and previous research on motivation. This part contains authors theoretical
analysis in which he synthesize and ex-pound ideas upon the subject area in question. In
this part firstly, the concept of motivation is presented and clarified. Secondly, the most
important content and process theories of motivation are introduced.

The third part of this thesis paper is based on authors own research. It starts with
description of used methodology. The research method and the ways of gathering
information, collecting data and preparing the questionnaire are presented. In the next
step author justify the choice of five factors used in the questionnaire.

The fourth part of the paper presents results of the research for the workers. They are
followed by discussion, guidelines and summary of findings.

The paper is ended by a conclusion which summarizes the thesis. The last part lists the
references used during the process of writing this thesis and are followed by appendix
that contain questionnaires.
















4

1.3 OBJECTIVES\PURPOSE OF THE THESIS

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate and analyses the factors which motivate
employees, under consideration of individual characteristics. In trying to find answers to
the research question and on the basis of the above background discussion and research
question, the main purposes developed for this thesis is to assess the factors that motivate
employees to perform best at work.

































5

1.4 LIMITATION

Due to the scope of this research there are several limitations that need to be addressed.
Firstly, the present study limited its sample to a group of workers from comfit composite
knit limited, Standard Group and Ecomex Limited. This may hinder the generalizability
of the results. In other words, results should be generalized only to the population of
workers from particular industry. However, it is possible that workers from other
industries would give similar answers.

Secondly, the list of five factors used in the questionnaire was made on the basis of
previous researches on that topic. The motivation factors chosen to be ranked seem to
cover the most important aspects of motivation. However, a disadvantage of choosing
this particular form of questioning is a risk to miss some factors that are important but are
not listed. To avoid this bias an open- ended question was added. The response rate for
this question was low. It might mean that the list contained all the most important
motivators. On the other hand, it is possible that there are still some other important
factors but respondents just did not want to answer the open-ended question.

Finally, the questionnaire used in the research was designed in Bangla for the workers
because all of the workers are feel comfort with this language. To minimize the
difference the questionnaire was translated to English for the research paper.



















6

1.5 THE SELECTED COMPANY

The company where we carried out the empirical research is located in Tangail (Comfit
composite knit limited), Gazipur (Ecomax Limited) and Dhaka (Standard Group) which
are a large sized production company.

During our company visits we have the possibility to be guided through departments of
the company in order to get an impression of the work and the work environment. During
this guided tour, we received information about the work tasks of the respective
employees, which helped me to better understand the results of the mail questionnaire
later on.





























7

Chapter 2
Literature Review

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

In todays world, the biggest task of the human-resource manager is to motivate and
retain employees. Motivation is a companys life-blood (Sharma, 2006: i). Businesses
today have entered a new era in the relationship between the companies themselves and
their employees. The companies can no longer see their employees as either their loyal
family members or as easily replaceable company resources. In this new era, employees
need to be respected and like to be treated as valuable human capital, as even more
important than the companys financial capital. Employees are now becoming the main
source of a companys competitive advantage. Therefore, how a company treats its
employees increasingly determines whether a company is going to thrive or even to
survive (Lawler, 2003:3). As Lawler (2000:3) says, in the twenty-first century, treating
people right is not an option; it is a necessity.

Employee try to find satisfaction in what they do and as a result the manager should
be able to understand the problems faced by his workers and find a way of satisfying their
needs and aspiration. The general assumption is that an adequately motivated worker will
in turn give in his or her best towards the attainment of a general consensus. when a
worker is motivated the question of poor performance and inefficiency will be
forgotten issue in an organization.

A well-managed company can retain and motivate its employees, and hence has the
following advantages: reduced turnover; increased productivity; reduced absenteeism;
increased revenue; and improved performance. Companies need to attract and retain
talented employees (Pittorino et al 2005:11), therefore understanding what motivates
employees has become an essential requirement for todays managers.

2.1 MOTIVATION DEFINED

Since the 1930s, work motivation has been of interest to the industrial/organizational
psychologists, stimulated mainly by the famous Hawthorne studies, and followed by
studies by Vroom, Herzberg, Bandura, Skinner and many more. However, the study and
understanding of work motivation is far from complete (Locke & Latham, 2004:388).
The aim of this study is to help organizations to adapt to changes in the world of work
with the aid of the existing motivation theories.

8

Everyone has motives that are inspired by certain factors that encourage the desire to
enhance performance (Kressler, 2003:1). The word motivation is derived from the
movere, which means to move (Kretiner, 1998 in Ramlall, 2004:53). Motivation has
been defined as an internal drive to satisfy an unsatisfied need (Higgins, 1994 in Lindner,
1998:2). To define motivation both in a comprehensive and explicit way, Pinder (1995),
Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981), Steers and Porter (1979), and Vroom (1964),
formulate following definition (1998, p.11) : Work motivation is a set of energetic
forces that originate both within as beyond an individuals being, to initiate work-related
behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration.

Kreitner (1995), Buford, Bedeian &Linder (1995), Higgins (1994) all cited in Linder
(1998,p3) defined motivation as the psychological process that gives behavior purpose
and direction, a predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific unmet
needs, an unsatisfied need, and the will to achieve, respectively. For this thesis, the
definition of motivation by Greenberg & Baron (2003) is adopted, as it is more realistic
and simple. Greenberg &Baron defines motivation as:
The set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain human behavior towards attaining
some goal. (Greenberg &Baron, 2003, p190).


2.2 SOURCES OF MOTIVATION

Sources of motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Jones & George, 2004:405).
Intrinsically motivated behavior is behavior that is performed for ones own sake and
extrinsically motivated behavior is performed to acquire rewards or to avoid punishment.













9

2.3 THE CONCEPT OF WORK MOTIVATION
The term motive usually is explained as desires, needs, emotions or impulses that make
someone do something. Following this definition, motivation is the state of being incited
to action. When we take into consideration work environment it becomes clear that work
motivation refers to motivation within a work setting. Typically, it refers to employees
motivation to perform, stay and commit in a company, cooperate, lead or support a
leader, help customers and so forth. Obviously, this definition from International
Encyclopedia of Organizational Studies (ed. Bailey & Clegg, 2008) is just an example
from a mass of work motivation definitions which can be found in almost every paper
about this topic. Some authors define what motivation is by explaining where it comes
from. In this approach work motivation has been defined as a psychological process
resulting from the reciprocal interaction between the individual and the environment that
affects a persons choices, effort, and persistence (Latham & Ernst, 2006). In other
definitions work motivation is associated with the goal attainment. People are motivated
to do something if they believe it is likely that it will bring desired result. People who are
well motivated take action that they expect will achieve their clearly defined goals
(Armstrong, 2007). Kanfer (1990, as cited in Bjorklund, 2001) stressed that motivation is
a phenomenon which cannot be directly observed. The only way to infer motivational
processes is to analyze streams of behavior caused by environmental or inherited factors
which can be observed through their effects on abilities, beliefs, knowledge and
personality.

There are probably as many definitions of motivation as researchers working on this
topic. However, there are some features of motivation that are common for most
definitions. It can be observed from the examples presented above that when authors
describe motivation they mention an action or behavior that is directed and sustained as a
result of motivation. In other words motivation is usually described as an invisible force
that pushes people to behave in a certain way. For the purpose of this thesis definition by
Pinder (1998) will be used as it seems to define motivation both in a comprehensive and
explicit way. Pinder used work of Jones (1995), Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981),
Steers and Porter (1979), and Vroom (1964) to formulate following definition (1998,
p.11) : Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as beyond
an individuals being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form,
direction, intensity, and duration. Pinder (1998) believes that presented definition has
some features that make it better than others. Firstly, it is not general as many other
definitions, it presents motivation in a close relation to work and careers. His definition is
intended to apply behavior such as joining or leaving company, being punctual,
respecting or not supervisors orders, inventing better ways to performing a job and
accepting relocation to another place. According to Pinder one of the key elements that
are important in defining motivation is a concept of force. It not only makes the definition
10

consistent with other authors work but also allows motivation level to be weak or strong
depending on circumstances. The idea of force suggests that motivation is related to an
effort. Pinder believes that effort is a consequence and indicator of motivation rather than
the same phenomena. He points out that his definition does not present hedonism as a
primary force in work motivation. However, it does not exclude it either. There are three
more important elements of Pinders work motivation definition: intensity, direction and
duration. Author describes the intensity dimension using two terms created by Brehm and
Self (1989) potential motivation and potential arousal. The first of those two terms is
created by expectations that performance of behavior will affect final outcome. The
second term is dependent on magnitude of potential motivation and occurs only to the
extent that particular behavior is difficult. In Pinders opinion intensit y is not affected by
the potential available and is defined as the transient size of motivational arousal in a
particular point of time. The direction can be understood by considering towards which
goals the energy of motivation is directed. Finally, the duration suggests that goal
achieving might be a possible outcome of on job behavior. As the last but also very
important feature of the definition Pinder mentions the fact that motivation is presented
as a hypothetical construct which cannot be measured or seen directly but is treated as an
existing psychological process.

2.4 RESEARCH DESIGN
Once a literature study has been done, a questionnaire will be designed. The
questionnaire will then be distributed among the employees in various garments. In the
questionnaire, questions will be used to determine the level of motivation among the
employees. The questionnaire will then be validated by using appropriate statistical
methods which include item analysis & Chi square analysis.


2.5 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Organizational effectiveness is the concept of how effective an organization is in
achieving the outcomes the organization intends to produce. Organizational
effectiveness is an abstract concept and is basically impossible to measure. Instead of
measuring organizational effectiveness, the organization determines proxy measures
which will be used to represent effectiveness. We may include such things as efficiency
of management, performance of employees, core competencies, number of people served,
types and sizes of population segments served and so on. So we focused on the
performance of the employees that to what extend this proxy measure contributes in
Organizational effective



11

Chapter 3
Theoretical Background

3.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Employee motivation is influenced by the employee himself or herself, the management
and the environment. Motivating the employee is the managers job (Birkin, 2006:40). It
is therefore the managers job to understand what motivates the employees. Based on
Locke and Lathams integrated model of work motivation, various theories of
work/employee motivation will be discussed, including Maslows need hierarchy,
McClellands personality-based approach to employee motivation, Vrooms VIE theory,
Locke and Lathams goal theory, Banduras self-efficacy theory, Weiners attribution
theory, Herzbergs job characteristics model, the organizational commitment theory and
Adams equity theory. These theories attempt to explain employees behavior. They
provide understanding to both managers and employees of how to motivate others and/or
become more involved in ones own motivation (Drafke & Kossen, 2002:273). The
important motivational factors identified by Nelson and Lindner will be discussed in
detail and will also be used as the foundation for setting up the questionnaire for the
research.
Locke and Latham (2004:388) mention that all of the above theories have limitations and
criticisms. Their six recommendations for possible directions for future research on
motivation will also be discussed.

3.1 KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
The key concept motivation will be defined in the study. The following key concepts
relating to work motivation and relevant work motivation theories, based on Locke and
Lathams integrated model of work motivation, will be discussed in this study:
Needs
Values and personality
Personality theory
VIE theory
Incentives
Self-efficacy
Goal choice
Goal and efficacy mechanisms
Goal theory and social-cognitive theory
Goal moderators
Performance and outcomes
Attribution theory
Job characteristics theory
12

Satisfaction and dissatisfaction
Organization policies and procedures
Distributive and procedural justice theory
Organizational commitment

3.2 MOTIVATION THEORIES
The subject of motivation has been present in the literature from the early beginning of
20th Century. Although, many theories have been developed and aplenty of research has
been conducted, factors that motivate people to perform well at work are still a
controversial topic. Many researchers as a starting point for their work in the field of
motivation used the most known theories and models of motivation. Armstrong (2007) in
his book about employee reward management summarized those theories in a clear and
useful way. According to him, Taylors theory of motivation to work is related to rewards
and penalties which are directly connected to performance. Maslows concept of
hierarchy of needs is less instrumental approach. It defines motivation as a result of
peoples unsatisfied needs. Herzberg focused on a distinction between extrinsic and
intrinsic motivators. Those old theories are definitely important, however they are not
perfect. Analysis showed that they are characterized by some significant weaknesses.
Armstrong presents modern, process theories which approach motivation from different
perspective. As an example, Vrooms expectancy theory explains that motivation exists
only when relationship between performance and outcome is clear and usable. Goal
theory emphasizes the role of a feedback and setting goals in relation to motivation and
performance. Finally, Equity theory says that people are more motivated if they are
treated equally. In the previous part of this paper a number of motivation definitions have
been presented. Each of existing definitions has some strengths and weaknesses. Exactly
the same can be said about motivational theories. As one can observe from the short
overview presented above there are many different theoretical approaches to the topic of
motivation. Motivation for a group of authors is strictly related to human needs, while
point of view of other authors is much more focused on cognitive processes that influence
peoples behavior. In the literature of the subject those differences between theories
resulted in a division in two categories: content and process theories. In the next part of
this paper the most important theories from each category will be presented and analyzed.

3.2.1 CONTENT THEORIES
The content theories are characterized by emphasis on what motivates people. They
concern with individual goals and needs which are said to be the same for every person.
Although, needs, they differ in defining what those needs are. The most well-known and
very often cited author of motivational theory is Maslow human needs (Fincham &
Rhodes, 2005) behavior is driven by the existence of unsatisfied needs. His hierarchy
13

from psychological needs and lead through security needs, social needs, self-esteem
needs and self-actualization need on the top position

Figure 3.1: Maslows hierarchy of needs
According to Maslow, higher needs are not felt until lower needs are not fulfilled.
Additionally, when the need is satisfied it does not influence human behavior anymore
and as a result the focus is moved into a need which is higher in the hierarchy.
Maslow divided needs into two categories: deficiency needs and high-order needs.
Deficiency needs include basic needs such as hunger or thirst and a need for shelter and
protection. When these needs are satisfied people become motivated by high order needs
such as the need for supportive and satisfactory relationships with others, needs for
freedom, independence, recognition and achievement and finally the need to develop
ones potential. The self-actualization which is the highest step in Maslows pyramid can
be described as the ending point of gradual psychological maturation process. This final
level is achieved by few people and unlike other needs is never fully satisfied (Fincham
& Rhodes, 2005).
Maslows work on the theory of needs has been followed by other authors who took an
attempt to improve it. One of modifications was presented in 1973 by Alderfer, who
developed and tested model with fewer needs levels (Pinder,1998). His study, unlike
Maslows, was based on empirical research in organizational settings. The theory
suggests three general categories of human needs which are partly based on Maslows
model but are not the same. Alderfers model is named ERG and consists of existence
needs, relatedness needs and growth needs. The first group is closely related to Maslows
physiological needs and partly to security needs (only physical security).Existence needs
are concrete in nature and are usually limited. A good example of them in organization
setting is a salary. If money has to be divided between two groups - the more money
14

receives one group, the less gets the other group. Relatedness needs basically consist of
the interpersonal security needs, the need for prestige and esteem from others. Satisfying
relatedness needs requires development of relations and interactions with other people.
The last group of needs in Alderfers theory contains growth needs. Although, growth
needs are corresponding to Maslows self-esteem and self-actualization needs there are
some major differences in a point of view of those two authors. Maslow suggested that
self-actualization consist of a fulfillment of unique, innate potential, whereas Alderfers
growth needs contain desire to interact with environment by investigating, exploring and
mastering it. In Alderfers model growth needs change if ones environment changes
(Pinder, 1998).
The next important contributor to the field of content theories is McClelland whose
model became a starting point for many other authors research. McClellands theory
focuses on three motives that are relevant in an organizational context (Miner, 2006).
Maslow differentiated between any certain transitions among the needs, whereas
McClelland indicates that some people have higher needs than others. Moreover, needs in
McClellands point of view change over a life as they are shaped by peoples experience.
That is why income sources his theory is called acquired needs theory. McClelland
(1990) suggested that most of acquired needs can be classified to one of three groups:
achievement needs, power needs or affiliation needs. In his opinion some people have a
strong need for achievement others for power and finally there is a group that desire
affiliation. High achievers tend to perform better for the intrinsic satisfaction for doing
something better or just to show that they are more capable of doing something. They
prefer to work with tasks which are moderately challenging and they actually perform
better with those kinds of tasks. In one of their papers McClellands and Burnham
(1976) deliberate on what makes people good managers. They suggest that high
achievement is an important factor that leads to the personal success but it does not
necessarily make someone a good manager. High achievers work on their own success by
doing everything personally and by receiving feedback that is crucial for them. Managers
are not able to do everything by themselves so they have to put some responsibility on
others. As well as that, the feedback that they receive comes with a delay, so they are not
able to find out immediately how well they performed. Regarding those facts
McClellands and Burnham stated opinion that the factor that has a great influence on
being a successful manager is something else than a need for achievement. They
suggested that it is the need for power that is characterized by a desire to influence
people.
McClelland (1990) found that people who desire to have some serious influence on other
have some special traits. The high need for power usually comes with features such as
competitiveness, assertiveness and aggressiveness which result in a negative self-image.
The socially acceptable way to fulfill the need for power is the search for prestige by
collecting symbols of power. People characterized by a high need for power tend to act in
15

a way that makes them recognized in group. Finally, they are more willing to take a
risk. The last group of needs described by McClellands model is the group of needs for
affiliation. The term affiliation was described by Atkinson, Hens, & Verify (1954), as
the concern over establishing, maintaining, or restoring a positive, affective relationship
with another person or persons (as cited in McClelland, 1990, p.347). People with a
strong need for affiliation perform better in tasks which are related to affinitive
incentives. In other words, they prefer if their work require maintaining contacts with
other people. High affiliated individuals avoid conflict and prefer to solve problems by
cooperative and confirmative behavior. The reason for that is the fear for rejection.
McClellands findings suggested that the need for affiliation is not a factor that supports
management. Managers high in affiliation try to spend more time with employees and
make good relations with them, but it is not a crucial part of being a manager, who
sometimes has to make hard decisions (McClelland, 1990) .The last content theory that
will be presented in this chapter, is Herzbergs two factor theory. The theory brought a lot
of interest from academics and from managers who were looking for ways of motivating
their employees. The reason for so much interest in Herzbergs results comes from a dual
character of his work. His theory not only describes employees needs but also goes
further and presents how to enrich jobs and make workforce more motivated (Fincham
&Rhodes, 2005).
Herzberg indicates that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposite
phenomena (Herzberg, 1968). According to him the opposite of satisfaction is rather no
satisfaction and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. Herzberg suggests
that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are produced by different factors. People are satisfied
at their work by factors related to content of that work. Those factors are called intrinsic
motivators and contain achievement, recognition, interesting work, responsibility,
advancement and growth. Factors that make people unhappy with their work are called
dissatisfies or hygiene factors. Herzberg found following dissatisfies: company policy,
supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relationships, salary, status, security. What
makes them different from motivators is the fact that they are not related to the content of
the work but to the context of the job (Herzberg,1974). Figure 2 presents a frequency of
each factor in Herzbergs research and their division into hygiene factors and intrinsic
motivators.
In Herzbergs research the most frequently chosen factors which led to satisfaction were
achievement and recognition, while the most frequently chosen factors which led to
dissatisfaction were company policy and administration and good relations with
supervisor
Each of presented here content theories has some strengths and weaknesses. It might have
happened that authors of those theories focused strongly on a onside of the problem but
they missed other important side. Motivation of employees is really important topic, so
every research in this subject is observed and evaluated by other researchers. As a result
16

some researchers agree with and support original theories and others disagree and
criticize them. In other words, the most well-known theories in motivation bring some
serious controversies.







Figure 3.2.1: Herzbergs theory factors affecting job attitudes

3.2.2 PROCESS THEORIES
Process theories are characterized by a dynamic character, not static as content theories.
The main concern is not what motivates people but how motivation occurs. Process
theories try to explain how and why peoples behavior is directed to certain choices. The
focus of all process theories is put-on the role of individuals cognitive processes in
determining his or her level of motivation (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005, p.202). The
process theory which seems to be the core one is the Expectancy Theory. This model was
17

originally presented by Vroom (1968), however many other later researchers tried to
adapt and develops it. Vroms Expectancy theory compromises three factors: valence,
instrumentality and expectancy. Vroom describes valence in a relation to peoples
affecting preferences toward particular outcomes. The valence of outcome is positive if a
person prefers attaining it instead of not attaining. Oppositely, the negative valence of
outcomes characterize situation when a person prefers not attaining it instead of attaining.
The third possibility is zero valence of outcome, which means that a person is indifferent
between attaining outcome or not. The instrumentality is a belief that one action lead to
another. Finally, the expectancy is defined as a belief about likelihood that a particular
behavior will be followed by a particular outcome (Vroom, 1964). Values of those three
factors can be used to calculate the motivational force of the job,. Summarizing, Vrooms
theory suggests that a job is motivating for employees when they can see a relation
between performance and outcome, if they have abilities to do the job and if they see
outcome as satisfying their needs. Vrooms theory can be a suggestion for managers to
focus on main aspects of their subordinates perceptions. As well as that, it is helpful in
explaining occupational choices and in predicting tasks that people will work most and
least hard at(Fincham & Rhodes, 2005).
Another group of process theories - equity theories, are related to the distribution of
resources. There are three main aspects that are common for all equity theories. Firstly,
they suggest that employee perceive a fair return for his contribution at work. Secondly,
they imply that employees compare the return they received to the return received by
other for the same job. Finally, they assume that employees who are in inequitable
position comparing to others will try to do something to reduce the difference (Carrell &
Dittrich, 1978). The most influential and often cited in the literature of motivation is the
Equity Theory, which was put forward in 1963 by Adams. The theory distinguishes
between employees inputs and outputs. Inputs are understood as the number and value of
contributions that person make to his or her work. Outputs are described as the nature and
quantity of received rewards for doing the job (Pinder, 1998).Examples of inputs and
outputs are presented in Figure 3.
18


Figure 3.2.2: The Equity Theory diagram
According to Adams theory different employees stress different inputs and outcomes as
the most important for them. However, all people evaluate their outcomes in a relation to
their inputs and judge a fairness of this relation. What is suggested by the theory is the
fact that people not only evaluate the equity by comparing the amount of their inputs and
outputs but additionally they make social comparisons with other people. They feel that
they are not treated fairly if other people receive better outputs for the same job. As was
stated before, employees who encounter inequity try to do something to reduce it. The
equity theory presents the most common consequences of perceived inequity. The first
and the most common behavior is changing employees own effort to increase or reduce
performance. If it is not possible to solve the problem of unfairness by changing effort
then employee try to cognitively reevaluate outcomes and inputs. That means for
example reconsideration of own credentials or effort in a comparison to credentials or
effort of a person who was chosen as a referent. The inequity may lead to some
dysfunctional reactions such as stealing from employer. Finally, employee may simply
decide to withdraw from a company (Pin












19

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

4.0 METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
Each research problem is in some way unique, and therefore requires a tailored research
procedure. In the following, the research process of this study is shown;


Formulation
of the problem and the
research questions


questionnaire
Interviews

Secondary data

Analysis


Result


Conclusion

Figure 4.0.1: Stages in the research process.

The first step in doing this research was the formulation of the problem and the creation
of the research questions. Thereafter, identify the methodology which would best fit the
problem under research. After that, gathered secondary data in the form of books and
articles in order to improve understanding of the research problem. Next create The
questionnaire about motivation and work based on the knowledge of the theoretical
research. Thereby, several decisions such as the form of the questions, the language used
in the questionnaire, as well as the procedure in performing the mail questionnaire had to
be made. The questionnaire was tested and several days later sent by mail or by hand to
each employee of the company. One week later the questionnaires were collected and a
period of editing and analyzing the data. These results were used for carrying out
20

interviews with several employees in order to get a deeper understanding of the
questionnaire results. After carrying out the interviews, a period of writing down the
results of the mail questionnaire and interviews in connection with the theoretical
framework followed. During the entire time between determining the methodology and
the end of writing down the analysis the frames of reference was created. Finally, the
research report was completed by adding the conclusion and the closing comments.

4.1 I RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The standardized instrument utilized was the Weiman Occupational Stress Scale, which
was designed in 1978. The Weiman Occupational Stress Scale was used to establish a
baseline score for the participants in the study. The Weiman Scale is a fifteen question
instrument that it scored on a 3 point Likert-type instrument that measures important
motivational factor. Answers on the scale range from 1-3 points, with 1 = yes , 2 =
sometimes , 3 = no
The author chose these instruments for several reasons. Both the Weiman Occupational
Stress Scale and the listed questionnaire were simple instruments for subjects to complete
and it takes very limited time and instructions. On average, the questionnaires took
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
Chi-square used to test the hypothesis of independence of two variables of classification.
The two variables are null hypothesis H and Alternative hypothesis H1 .In our thesis
work we have used this important tools for two purposes Firstly we have used it for the
purpose of testing independence between factors that needs to be concerned and the
garments we visited. Either the factors are dependent on the garments or applicable for all
garments. Secondly the major factors dependent on various departments of the garments
or independents.
4.2 Data Analysis
The Weiman Occupational Stress Scale is scored by adding together the total number of
point for the three questions for each factor. The range that can be scored by a subject is a
maximum of 9 points and a minimum of 3 points.
To determine the highest rank of motivational factor, five condition are selected those are
mostly responsible for motivating the workers such as salary & payment, working
condition, working environment, reward & bonus, safety.The mean score for each
condition are determined using Weiman Occupational stress scale. Using the mean scores
these conditions are ranked from highest motivation factor to lowest motivation factor.

4.3 PROCEDURE
For collecting data a questionnaire is made which contains total 15 questions for five
factors. The questionnaires are provided among workers under Comfit Composite Knit
Limited, Standard Group, New tex where each selected workers from different
department of organizations are asked about the questions to complete the questionnaires.
21

This data is then used to measure the most important motivational factor using Weiman
Occupational stress scale.
Using Weiman Occupational stress scale rating, the score for all factor choosing are
determined for every selected worker. The score of 50 workers is then summed for every
factor. The average score is then determined dividing by number of workers. The
individual score is obtained dividing by number of questions for every factor. The factor
which are responsible for motivate the workers are then ranked based on individual score.

4.4 CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION

The following information about chi square distribution is given from Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_distribution)
In probability theory and statistics, the chi-square distribution (also chi-squared or -
distribution) with k degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
of k independent standard normal random variables. It is one of the most widely
used probability distributions in inferential statistics, e.g., in hypothesis testing or in
construction of confidence intervals.
[40][41][42][43]
When there is a need to contrast it with
the non-central chi-square distribution, this distribution is sometimes called the central
chi-square distribution.
The chi-square distribution is used in the common chi-square tests for goodness of an
observed distribution to a theoretical one, the independence of two criteria of
classification of qualitative data, and in confidence estimation for a population standard
deviation of a normal distribution from a sample standard deviation. Many other
statistical tests also use this distribution, like Friedman's analysis of variance by ranks.
The chi-square distribution is a special case of the gamma distribution.
4.4.1 DEFINITION

If Z
1
... Z
k
are independent, standard normal random variables, then the sum of their
squares,

is distributed according to the chi-square distribution with k degrees of freedom. This is
usually denoted as

The chi-square distribution has one parameter: k (also denoted as ); a positive integer
that specifies the number of degrees of freedom.



22

4.4.2 STATISTIC OF CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION


The statistic also can be written as-
(o
i
e
i
)
2
/e
i
(i=1 to k)

Where-
X
i
= O
i =
observed frequency

i
= e
i
= expected frequency


4.4.3 Characteristics



Figure 4.4.1: probability density function (pdf) of chi square distribution
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

f
(
x
)

x
23



Figure 4.4.2 : cumulative distribution (cdf) function of chi square distribution

notation:
or
parameters: k N
1
degrees of freedom
support: x [0, +)
pdf:

cdf:

mean: k
median:

mode: max{ k 2, 0 }
variance: 2k
skewness:

ex.kurtosis: 12 / k
entropy:

mgf: (1 2 t)
k/2
for t <
cf: (1 2 i t)
k/2

[39]

Table 4.4.1: characteristics of chi square distribution

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

F
(
x
)

x
24

Chapter 5
Calculation

5.0 CALCULATION
This chapter will be a presentation of demographic information, result of the Weiman
Occupational Stress Scale and result of the chi-square test.

5.1 CHI SQUARE TESTS
In this segment, we have performed hypothesis test showing whether or not the major
five factors are garment dependent (test for independence 1) and whether the factors are
Department dependent or not (test for independence 2).

5.1.1 TEST FOR INDEPENDENCE 1

Table1 5.1.1: 35contingency table for observed frequency of the factors in the garments
Factor



Industry
Salary
&
Payment
Working
Condition
Environmental
Condition
Safety Reward
&
Bonus
Total
Comfit

40 9 14 10 25 98
Standard

35 12 11 7 20 85
Ecomax
Limited
40 7 15 8 17 87
Total 115 28 40 25 62 270










25

Table 5.1.2: observed and expected frequency of the factors
Factors



Industry
Salary
&
Payment
Working
Condition
Environmental
Condition
Safety Reward
&
Bonus
Total
Comfit

40(41.74) 9(10.16) 14(14.51) 10(9.07) 25(22.50) 98
Standard

35(36.20) 12(8.81) 11(12.6) 7(7.87) 20(19.51) 85
Ecomax
Limited
40(37) 7(9.02) 15(12.88) 8(8.05) 17(19.97) 87
Total 115 28 40 25 62 270

5.1.2 SAMPLE CALCULATION

2actual = (oi ei) 2/ei
ei = expected frequency= (column total) (row total)/grand total
Expected Frequency:
-for Comfit
e1 = (115*98)/270 =41.74
e2 = (28*98)/270 =10.16
-for Standard Group
e1 = (115*85)/270 = 36.20
e2 = (28*85)/270 = 8.81
2 value For First Column:
(4041.74)2/41.74 =0.0725
(3536.20)2/36.20 =0.0397
(4037)2/37=0.243

2
actual
=0.0725+0.132+0.018+0.095+0.277+0.0397+1.15+0.2+0.096+0.0123+0.24+0.45+0.35+
0.0003+0.44=3.43







26

5.1.3 SOLUTION:
1. H = data is garment independent
2. H
1
= data is garment dependent
3. = 0.05,0.005
4. Degree of freedom: = (r-1) (c-1) = (3-1) (5-1) = 8
5.
2
actual
=3.43
6.
2
0.05,08
= 15.507 >
2
actual
7.
2
0.005,08
= 21.955 >
2
actual

8. Decision: do not reject H

5.1.4 Test for independence 2

Table 5.1.3: for observed frequency of factors respective to different departments
Department : Printing Dyeing Cutting Sewing Total
Salary &
Payments

10 5 9 9 33
Working
Condition
2 1 3 5 11
Environmental
Condition
5 8 4 4 21
Safety

2 5 1 1 9
Reward & Bonus

2 9 7 7 25
Total

21 28 24 26 99

Table 5.1.4: for observed and expected frequency of factors respective to different
departments
Department : Printing Dyeing Cutting Sewing Total
Salary &
Payments

10(7.90) 1(7.64) 9(5.6) 9(6.85) 29
Working
Condition
7(5.45) 9(5.27) 3(4.54) 1(4.72)

20
Environmental
Condition
5(5.72) 8(5.53) 4(4.77) 4(4.96) 21
Safety

6(4.09) 2(3.95) 2(3.40) 5(3.54) 15
27

5.1.5 SOLUTION
1. H = problems are Department independent
2. H
1
= problems are Department dependent
3. = 0.05, 0.95
4. Degree of freedom: = (r-1) (c-1) = (5-1) (4-1) = 12
5.
2
actual
=24.84

2
actual
=
{(0.558+5.77+2.06+.67)+(0.44+2.64+0.52+2.9)+(0.09+1.10+0.124+0.1858)+(0.89+0.96
+0.54+0.6)+(3.4+0.87+0.3+0.2)=24.84
6.
2
0.05,12
= 21.026<
2
actual
7.
2
0.95,12
= 5.2526 <
2
actual

8. Decision: do not accept H

That means problems are Department dependent.

5.2 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
In the process of filling out the motivational questionnaires, participants were asked to
provide certain demographic information on their answer sheets. This information
included: number of years at present job, age of the workers, gender, and marital status.

5.2.1 NUMBER OF WORKERS AT DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT

Department Number of workers Percentages (%)
Cutting 13 26
Swing 22 44
Printing 10 20
Dying 5 10
Total 50 100


5.2.2 AGE OF THE WORKERS

Department Range Average age of workers
Cutting 27-50 31.76
Swing 25-52 30.50
Printing 21-35 26
Dying 28-50 36.6
Total 21-52 29.21


28



5.2.3 MARITAL STATUS

Department Married Unmarried
Cutting 8 5
Swing 15 7
Printing 3 7
Dying 4 1
Total 30 20


5.2.4 GENDER

Department Male Female
Cutting 10 3
Swing 12 10
Printing 6 4
Dying 5 0
Total 33 17



5.2.5 NUMBER OF YEARS AT PRESENT JOB

Department Range of years Average of years
Cutting 1-10 4.38
Swing 1-15 6.31
Printing 1-8 3.8
Dying 1-13 6
Total 1-15 5.30










29



5.3 WEIMAN OCCUPATIONAL STRESS SCALE
The Weiman Occupational Stress Scale (WOSS) was first introduced in 1978. The
Weiman Scale is a fifteen question instrument that it scored on a 3 point Likert-type
instrument that measures important motivational factor. To determine the highest rank of
motivational factor, five condition are selected those are mostly responsible for motivating
the workers such as salary & payment, working condition, working environment, reward
& bonus, safety. Using Weiman Occupational stress scale rating, the score for all factor
choosing are determined for every selected worker. The score of 50 workers is then
summed for every factor. The average score then determined dividing by number of
workers. The individual score is obtained dividing by number of questions for every
factor. The factor which are responsible for motivate the workers are then ranked based
on individual score.



5.3.1 TOTAL SCORE FOR FIVE FACTORS


Number of
workers
Salary &
Payments
Working
Condition
Environmental
Condition
Reward &
Bonus
Safety
01 7 4 5 6 4
02 7 4 6 6 4
03 6 4 6 5 3
04 7 3 5 6 3
05 7 3 5 6 3
06 5 4 4 7 3
07 6 3 5 5 4
08 7 4 6 6 4
09 7 4 5 6 4
10 6 3 5 5 3
11 6 5 5 6 3
12 6 4 6 6 3
13 7 5 5 6 4
14 5 4 5 5 3
15 7 4 5 5 3
16 5 5 4 5 3
17 5 3 4 7 4
18 7 3 5 6 3
30

Number of
workers
Salary &
Payments
Working
Condition
Environmental
Condition
Reward &
Bonus
Safety
19 6 5 4 6 3
20 7 4 5 6 4
21 7 4 6 6 4
22 7 4 5 6 4
23 7 3 4 5 3
24 7 5 4 7 4
25 7 4 4 5 3
26 6 5 5 6 4
27 6 3 5 7 3
28 6 4 5 7 4
29 5 4 5 5 4
30 5 4 6 5 4
31 7 4 6 5 3
32 6 4 4 6 3
33 5 3 6 6 3
34 6 3 5 6 4
35 5 3 6 6 4
36 5 4 4 5 4
37 7 5 5 5 4
38 7 4 5 7 3
39 7 4 5 6 3
40 7 5 5 6 4
41 7 4 5 6 3
42 6 3 4 6 4
43 6 3 4 7 4
44 7 3 5 5 4
45 6 4 4 5 3
46 6 4 4 6 3
47 5 4 4 6 4
48 5 5 5 5 3
49 7 4 4 6 3
50 7 4 4 6 4
Total 313 195 243 291 175




31


5.3.2 RANKING OF FACTORS

Factors Total Score Average Score Individual
Score
Rank
Salary &
Wages
313 6.26 2.09 1
Working
Condition
195 3.90 1.30 4
Environmental
Condition
243 4.86 1.62 3
Reward &
Bonus
291 5.82 1.94 2
Safety 175 3.50 1.17 5


























32

CHAPTER 6
Result Analysis and Recommendation


6.1 RESULT ANALYSIS

6.1.1 RESULT ANALYSIS FOR SEGMENT 5.1.2
In this segment, we have determined whether or not the major five problems are garments
dependent.
Result said that we accept the null hypothesis H (since
2
actual
<
2
critical
), that means the
major five problems are garment independent, in other words these problems are
prevalent on all garments and that is what we wanted prove.
We have determined
2
critical
for two different Confidence Interval (CI=1- ), 99.5% and
5%. For all CI, the value of
2
actual
is less than the value of
2
critical
.So even for very low CI
that is 5%, our null hypothesis is accepted.

6.1.2 RESULT ANALYSIS FOR SEGMENT 5.1.4
In this segment, we have determined whether the problems are department dependent or
not.
We have determined
2
critical
for two different Confidence Interval (CI=1- ), 95% and
5% For both CI, the value of
2
actual
is greater than the value of
2
critical
.
So we conclude that we reject the null hypothesis H (problems are m/c independent).
That means problems are department dependent, in other words particular department is
responsible for particular problem.

6.1.3 RESULT ANALYSIS FOR SEGMENT 5.3.2
In this segment we determine the highest rank of motivational factor, five condition are
selected those are mostly responsible for motivating the workers such as salary &
payment, working condition, working environment, reward & bonus, safety. Using
Weiman Occupational stress scale rating, the score for all factor choosing are determined
for every selected worker. The score of 50 workers is then summed for every factor. The
average score is then determined dividing by number of workers. The individual score is
obtained dividing by number of questions for every factor. The factor which are
responsible for motivate the workers are then ranked based on individual score.

From the table 5.3.2 we see that Salary & wages is the main factor that need to concerned
for the management


33




Figure 6.1.1 Major five factors (from table 5.3.2)




Figure 6.1.2: Motivating factor (from table 5.3.2)



34


6.1.4 ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
In an attempt to possibly contribute to, without doubt, one of the most important issues
facing organizations and their employees before today and possibly in the foreseeable
future this thesis undertook the factors that motivate me survey among 50 workers of
the Garments. Considered being a team of the future labor force. The results indicate that
the paramount and most popular motivating factor by a low margin (26%) among all the
survey participants was that of Salary & wages. It is necessary to make the reader aware
at this point that in discussing the responses or results of this survey, major emphasis will
be placed on the top five motivational factors ranked. The collective rank order of
motivational factors by the entire group of 50 respondents for this thesis indicate that: (1)
Salary & Wages, (2) Reward & Bonus, (3) Environmental Condition, (4) Working Condition,(5)
Safety were considered to be the top five most important factors. (Ranked first to fifth
respectively).

6.1.5 COMPARISON OF THE RANKING OF PRIMARY FACTORS
Hersey &Blanchard (1969), study of industrial employees, ranked: (1) full appreciation
of work done, (2) feeling of being (3) sympathetic help with personal problems, (4) job
security(5) Good wages/salaries as the five top motivational factors. Kovach (1987)
carried out a similar study of industrial employees in 1981 and again in 1986 and
concluded that by 1981 what workers wanted had changed interesting work was in first
position and sympathetic help with personal problems had dropped to the ninth position.
Kovach further reported that by 1986 the ranking had changed further and the top five
ranked motivational factors were (1) interesting work (2) full appreciation of work done
(3) feeling of being (recognition) (4) job security (5) good wages/salary. In a survey by
Wiley (1997) in which approximately 550 questionnaires were administered to persons
employed in different industries .The survey concluded the following collective rank by
respondents (1) Good wages (2) full appreciation of work (3) job security(4)
promotions/expectations and (5) Interesting work. The ranked order of motivational
factors according to a survey of extension workers by Lindner (1998) found the following
ranking of five out of the ten motivational factors.(1)Interesting work (2) good
wages/salary (3) recognition (4) job security (5) good working conditions.
It is only appropriate at this point to discuss the findings of this study compared with the
other previous studies mentioned above. It can be observed that Hampaz (1990) ranked
Job satisfaction as the most important motivational factor at that time among industrial
workers. Seventeen years later, the results of this study also indicate that the most
paramount motivational factor by a wide margin among future employees today is that of
Job satisfaction. This finding is further supported by the 1986 study carried out by
Kovach (1987), And Lindner (1998).Furthermore, the importance of interesting work is
also supported by Herzbergs (1968) motivation-hygiene theory. This theory posits that
35

employees are motivated by their own inherent need to succeed at a challenging task. The
managers job is then to provide opportunities for people to be motivated to achieve
(Herberg 1987, Pp29-31). Interesting work was also ranked 5th by one of the earliest
employee surveys (Hersey &Blanchard 969) as well as the 1946, 1997 results in Wiley
(1997). Although in this study job satisfaction was not ranked first but it was considered
among the top five motivational factors. Based on the results of this thesis we believe that
(at least in the developing world situation) this factor will only grow in importance for
employees. I do not doubt the fact that no employee will prefer aborting and monotonous
job that lives him unsatisfied. Therefore, organizations are faced with the task of making
work interesting for their employees else run the possible risk of high labor turnover. For
example, I have always seen money as the main and primary reason why People work.
This has however been proven otherwise. Herberg (1968,pp87) suggested that yes,
having spiraling wages motivates people, but only to seek the next wage increase,
therefore as an affecter of job altitudes, salary has more potency as a job dissatisfies than
a job satisfies. Hence, Herzberg as a hygiene factor originally considered wages/salaries.
However over the years research have shown that it is dissatisfaction on the job. Even
(1964), Shipley & Kiley (1988) concluded that some job characteristics did not group
according to the hygiene-motivator dichotomy since variables led to both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction and that certain factors were identified to be both motivators and
dissatisfies respectively. Wiley (1997), the results of the 1992 study reported in Wiley
(1997) and Analoni (2000) all ranked good wages as the most important motivational
factor, while it was ranked second by Lindner (1998) and Hampaz (1990). In this study
good wages was ranked 4th as the most important factor among respondents. In a study by
Wiley (1997) good wages was ranked the5th most important factor. This consistent
average importance given to wages by employees may suggest that this factor have never
and perhaps will never be regarded as the most important motivational factor. However,
majority of these studies have been undertaken in the developed world the importance
that might not be the same in the developing world. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) ranked
promotions/expectations/rewards in 7th place. While Kovach1987), Wiley (1997),
Lindner (1998), all ranked this same factor in the 6th, 4thand 5th places respectively. On
average, this factor was ranked 6th between 1946 and 1992 as reported in Wiley (1997).
In this study this factor was ranked 2nd. The almost average ranks of this factor both in
this study and previous studies are closely linked to the rank position given to this.
Factor since1946 the irony with this factor is that, originally Herzberg considered it as a
motivator thus one would expect it to be highly rated among employees as top
motivational factor. The result of this study and those of similar studies mentioned above,
do not seem to support the original Herzberg theory of this factor being a motivator.
Recognition or full appreciation of work done in the study by Herzberg (1987) and
Wiley(1990) was not ranked 2nd, by Hersey & Blanchard (1969) as one of the most
important motivational factor with a rank of 1st and 3rd by Lindner (1998). Furthermore,
36

the results reported in Wiley (1997) indicated that this factor was ranked 1st in 1946 and
consistently ranked 2nd between 1980 and 1922. In this study this factor occupied the 3rd
position. Perhaps the high levels of importance given to this factor in these earlier studies
was because Herzbergs two factor theory was new as a motivational tool for
organizations. Those may cause employees at that time who feel their work is not being
appreciated and recognized may work less or undermine the work of other employees.

6.1.6 RECOMMENDATION
By using Maslow need theory of motivation as a foundation or basis, the original need
factors, which have over the years been modified by other researchers, were also adapted
for use in this thesis. A survey questionnaire was prepared and administered among 50
Workers in Garments. Financial motivation we may all agree remains one of the
problems and major concerns facing organizations before, today and even in the
foreseeable future. Furthermore, organizations and those who work in them have over the
years changed in what motivates them as employees. Available and numerous studies
carried out shows that since the 1950s employees motivation have been the focal point
of much management organizations. Given the difficult nature of identifying how and
what really motivates these employees it is paramount that these organizations find all
means and ways possible to understand the motivational factors and to sustain them
overtime for their general survival. Such an understanding is the cause of low level of
labor turnover, high productivity, and high profitability. In order for them to gain an
understanding of what really motivates their employees an employee survey such as this
one maybe used to gain insight to employees job motivation preferences. The
respondents in this survey ranked as top five factors that motivate them as future
employees as follows: Salary & Wages, Working Condition, Environmental Condition,
Reward & Bonus, and Safety. This thesis concludes that, these factors reflect the current
state of affairs in terms of employees needs and implies that especially job redesign
strategies may be used to reinforce and to motivate employees today.

The most obvious and major findings emerging from this study is the clear indication of
Salary & Wages as a top motivator among todays future employees. Strikingly, however
is the ranking of a number of lower orders need factors rather than the growth (higher
order need factors) among the primary and top five most important motivational factors.
Regardless of age and gender, respondents in this survey seem to have a common interest
or goal. This I believe may have some practical implications for organizations, but
perhaps its provision and implications may not be as difficult because employees seem to
have similar preferences and wants. That is, they want their work to be as satisfying as it
could be. In general respondents in this thesis place high emphasis on Salary & Wages
and other factors, which that are largely of basic in nature. Therefore organizations that
may provide such enabling environments facilitate and tirelessly promote these basic
37

need factors could attract and retain high caliber employees. Harpaz (1990, p.81) argues
that when work is interesting and challenging, people are inspired to perform more than
is obligated to warrant their instrumental attainments, in other words, employees may
put additional effort with the hope of reaching their potential and accomplishing
worthwhile ends. Therefore the availability of unavailability of such job factors may
affect the worker and may influence the way the worker reacts towards the job. This may
also in the long run ultimately affect the workers motivational level and consequently the
workers performance or output on the job. Hence making jobs more interesting and
challenging and ensuring the availability of the primary motivational factors identified by
this thesis, is not only crucial for satisfying workers needs, but also it is requisite for
maintaining productivity and ensuring the long term survival of the organization. The
results of this study evidently show that it was mainly the growth factors (lower order
needs), which were highly valued and given higher motivational importance than the
traditional higher order need factors by the respondents. Maslow originally considered
need factors such as recognition, promotion and responsibilities to be very important
motivators. Wiley (1997, p.279) suggest that these factors are longstanding motivators
to employees performance and that the most successful method of motivating is to build
challenge and opportunity for achievement into the job itself.

When it comes to the issue of money, which for we though was the foremost reason why
people work or are motivated to work. Harpaz (1990, p.80) argues that the role money
plays in people lives cannot be overlooked, since the main reason why people work is to
secure income, which gives them buying powers and surpluses for savings. According to
(GreenbergJ. & Baron R Behavior in Organizations 8th edition Prentice Hall p.191)
When it comes to motivation money isnt everything he argues that perks, although
important ultimately motivate people less than doing interesting and important work. In
this study, all the respondents irrespective of age and gender considered wages to be of
motivational importance. Available literature as well as the findings of this study, show
that good wages has been consistently ranked among the top five factors that motivate
every employee to do his job best. Although an important motivational factor has been
identified as wages by previous studies. Put differently money can perform a dual role in
motivating employees. This thesis also concludes that the ranking of work-related factors
that motivate employees may change over time and may differ significantly from one
person to another and also across different groups of employees. Furthermore, this thesis
concludes that the important motivational valve placed on each factor may vary
according to age and gender. It is my believe that since the things or factors that motivate
people to do perform best are distinct and different, learning about what workers want
from their jobs, or what is more important for them, may generate essential information
for effective human-resource management. Thereby guarantying the long-term
profitability and survival of the organization. Furthermore, such learning may help
38

organizations to find answers to questions such as why do some people invest greater
effort in their jobs and why some people are more efficacious in their jobs than others?

The result of such exercises could prove useful for the organization, because knowing
what their employees wants and efforts in meeting these needs facilitate a mutual
working environment for both the employees and its management. Finally we believe the
results of this study and those presented and discussed in this thesis could be useful in
helping organizations determine what motivates employees or job-related motivational
preferences of their employees today and in the foreseeable future.































39


REFERENCES


Allender, H., & Allender, J. (1998). Identifying the right management job for you.
Industrial Management , Mar/Apr98, Vol. 40 Issue 2, 29-31

Armstrong, M., & Murlis, H. (2004). Reward management : a handbook of
remuneration strategy and practice. London: Kogan Page.

Dckel, A. 2003. The effect of retention factors on organizational commitment: an
investigation of high technology employees. Unpublished MCom thesis. Pretoria:
University of Pretoria.

Kreitner, R. 2004. Management 9 ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.


Lu, L. (1999). Work Motivation, Job Stress and Employees' Well-being. Journal of
Applied Management Studies , Jun99, Vol. 8 Issue 1, 61-63

Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. (2000, April 1). The Impact of Recognition on
Employee performance
http://www.sba.muohio.edu/management/MWAcademy/2000

Lawler, E. (1969). Job Design and Employees Motivation. Personnel Psychology ,
Winter69, Vol. 22 Issue 4, 426-435

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. 1990. Work Motivation: The High Performance Cycle. In:
Kleinbeck, U., Quast, H.H., Thierry, H & Hacker, H. (ed.) Work Motivation . New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers


Molander, C. (1996): Human Resources at Work, Chartwell-Bratt, Lund

Morgan, G. (1997): Images of Organization, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Mayfield, J. R., Mayfield, M. P., & Kopf, J. (1998). The Effects of Leader
Motivating Language on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction. Human
Resource Management, , Fall/Winter98, Vol. 37 Issue 3/4, 235-244, visited 19 may, 2010
40


Nelson, B. 2003. The top ten ways to motivate your employees. ABA Bank Marketing,
35(10) [Online]
Availablefrom:http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=309890291&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientl
d=39523&RQT=309&VName=PQD




Oldham, G., & Hackman, R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future
of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior , Feb2010, Vol. 31 Issue
2/3, 463-479.

Roche, W., & MacKinnon, N. (1970). Motivating people with meaningful work
Harvard Business Review , May/Jun70, Vol. 48 Issue 3, 97-110

Robbins, S.P. 2000. Managing today! 2 ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L. & Wilson, H.J. 2003. Whats the big idea? Creating
and capitalizing on the best management thinking. Massachusetts: Harvard Business
School Press.

Robbins, S.P. 2003. The truth about managing peopleand nothing but the truth.
Amsterdam: Financial Times, Prentice Hall.

Sharma, S. 2006. A right way to motivate an employee, is to win his heart!!! [Online]
Available from: http://www.bpoindia.org/research/win-heart.shtml [Downloaded: 2006-
07-25]

Simons, T. & Enz, C.A. 2006. Motivating hotel employees: beyond the carrot and the
stick. [Online] Available from: http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/ 489873-
1.html [Accessed: 2006-06-03]

Tharenou, P . (1993). A test of reciprocal causality for absenteeism . Journal of
Organizational Behavior , May93, Vol. 14 Issue 3, 269-287.

Trompenaars, F. & Woollomas, P. 2005. A new paradigm for HR: dilemmas in
employing and managing the resourceful human. In: Losey, M., Meisinger, S. & Ulrich

41

Vercueil, A. 2001. Organizational transformation and information technology: a systems
perspective of employee perceptions. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis. Pretoria:
University of Pretoria.












Appendix


Motivational Questionnaires

Salary & Payments:
1. Are you satisfied with your basic salary?
a) Yes b) Somewhat c) No
2. Is the basic salary given at the right time?
a) Yes b) Sometimes c) No
3. Are you satisfied with the company incentive system?
a) Yes b) Somewhat c) No

Working Condition:
1. Are you happy with the behave of your supervisor\in-charge?
a) Yes b) Somewhat c) No
2. Have there any work overload?
a) Yes b) Sometimes c) No
3. are you happy with youre your machine and supplying accessories?
a) Yes b) Somewhat c) No

Environmental condition:
1. What is the level of noise & dust?
a) Low b) Medium c) High
2. Have any type reducing process for dust or noise?
42

a) Yes b) Sometimes c) No
3. Have any recreation system?
a) Yes b) Sometimes c) No

Reward & Bonus:
1. Are you have festival bonus?
a) Yes b) Sometimes c) No
2. Are you have any attendance bonus?
a) Yes b) Sometimes c) No
3. Are you happy company reward system?
a) Yes b) Somewhat c) No

Safety:
1. Have any safety instruments in the industries?
a) Yes b) Somewhat c) No
2. Are you given any compensation for accident?
a) Yes b) Sometimes c) No
3. Are you have medical treatment from the company?
a) Yes b) Somewhat c) No