Abstract
Motivation plays a significant role in the performance of an employee in an organization. Business and management experts that tend to ensure an organization maintains and treats its employees well have developed several types of motivation. A study carried out at Sultan Qaboos University forms the case study for this topic. According to Ivancevich (2010), employee motivation assists in improving their productivity and performance at work in order to make an organization achieve its business objectives. The following discussion focuses on three main questions. First, it determines factors contributing to some employees performing better than others do. Secondly, it determines the reasons why some employees seem more satisfied in their jobs compared to others, and finally, it provides a recommendation to the management on how to create job satisfaction.
Key Words: Motivation, Job Satisfaction, Employee Performance.
Findings
The information acquired from Sultan Qaboos University senior staff seems to lay more emphasis on priorities undertaken by the University in motivating the staff. These are better supervisor-employee relationship, better remunerations, gratitude of work accomplished, work security, enhanced working conditions, promotions and development, loyalty to employees, discipline maintenance, and interesting working condition. The Maslow Hierarchy of needs theory gives an understanding of employee motivation using a comparison of these results. Tables 1, 2 and 3 represents the results achieved.
Figure 1: A bar graph showing the impact of employee motivation on job satisfaction results for table 2
Figure 2: A bar graph showing the impact of employee motivation on job satisfaction results for table 3
Data analysis
All statistical analysis was based on the assumption that the sample (N= 100) came from a normally distributed population. The above analysis was reasonable given that Howel (2002) proposed a sample size of 25 to 30 that is considered sufficiently large for many researches. The data analysis will make use of the Coefficient of correlation calculation and Regression analysis to answer the research questions. Three questions will be answered from this analysis with the help of graphs and tables.
Determining the coefficient (r) of correlation between results on table 2 and table 3
Using the formula:
r = n∑xy- ∑x)(∑yn∑x2-∑x2n∑y2-∑y2 .. (1)
where; n = 10
r = {10(18.24)-6.46*5.64}/√[10*20.99-6.462][10*15.91-5.642]}
= 0.954
The coefficient of correlation ranges between -1 and 1. The results show a coefficient of 0.954 or 95.4% hence, the variables have moderate positive correlation (Edwards 1984).
On the other hand, the results will be analyzed using Regression analysis method. Table 5 shows will help in calculating the regression.
The regression is a linear equation of a form: ŷ = bo + b1x. In order to conduct a regression analysis we need to solve for bo and b1. The computation is shown below:
b1 = Σ [ (xi - ẋ)(yi - ȳ) ] / Σ [ (xi - ẋ)2] and b0 = ȳ - b1 * ẋ.
b1 = 29.512/16.91
= 1.745
b0 = 0.564 – 1.745*0.646
= -0.563
ŷ = -0.563 +1.745x
table 6 shows regression values for our research
Coefficient of determination (R)
The coefficient of determination is used to determine how well the equation fits the data. This is derived from the following formula:
R2 = { ( 1 / N ) * Σ [ (xi - ẋ) * (yi - ȳ) ] / (σx * σy ) }2
Where N is the number of observations used to fit the model.
σx = standard deviation for x
σy = Standard deviation for y
the computations are shown below:
σx = sqrt [ Σ ( xi - ẋ )2 / N ] σy = qrt [ Σ ( yi - ȳ )2 / N ]
= √16.91/10 = 1.691 = √13.00/10 = 1.3
R2 = { ( 1 / N ) * Σ [ (xi - ẋ) * (yi - ȳ) ] / (σx * σy ) }2
= {(1/10)*29.512/1.691*1.3}2
= 0.5548
The coefficient of determinant of 0.5548 or 55.48% was realized an indication that the data obtained shows positive impact of employee motivation on job satisfaction for Sultan Qaboos University senior staff.
Discussion
What makes some employees perform better than others?
According to Mullins, employee’s motivation process creates a force that helps in transforming and uplifting an individual’s productivity hence increasing performance. An organization that maximizes its employee’s motivation always accomplishes its business goals and objectives and meets set targets (2002). Various forms of motivation that assist in improving the performance of employees hence, creating the difference in performance of one employee to the other.
The Frederick Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of Motivation can perfectly explain the role of supervisor and manager in employee performance. According to this theory, managers and supervisors should have an understanding of what causes employee performance in an organization (Basset-Jones, 2005). Various things including recognition, achievement, meaningful work, opportunities and responsibilities motivate people affect employees performance (Herzberg 1959; 100-120). Responses from the second question also signified the relationship between employees and their managers. The results collected from the interview shows that a bigger percentage never got an appreciation for their works or achievement. The type of motivation provided by the supervisor in terms of giving employees credit for their work affects differences employee’s performance. Employees who are highly appreciated for their achievements tend to record higher performances than employees who receive little or no appreciation (Endres and Mancheno-Smoak 2008; Latham 2007). Following this theory, it is clear that the source of differences in Sultan Qaboos University employees’ motivation was recognition and achievement.
Another factor that makes some employees perform better than others is the initiation of work related trainings. Implementing an employee-training program is of vital use to an organization because it increases their knowledge of work and therefore; increases their performances. Employees who take these such trainings seriously often have better work performance than those who take them for granted. In today environment, training forms the most important aspect for increasing the efficiency and the effectiveness of employees in an organization. Among many factors determining the employees’ performance, training forms the best option. Training also increases employee’s experience and feeds him or her with more skills and competence to perform a duty perfectly (Stone, 2002). From the data collected from the university staff, the type of work-related training offered satisfied only one employee. A big number of employees were either somehow satisfied or neutral on this matter. Even if the type of work-related training offered to the senior University staff was not adequate, it played a significant role in their performance.
The Equity Theory also assists in analyzing the factors that influence employees’ differences in performance in an organization. The theory claims that people compare their output with those of collogues to determine their level of performance and determine whether they face similar treatment from the organization management. The fairness in employees’ treatment affects their performance because an employee who faces discrimination of any nature from a manager always shows low performance compared to peers. Employees need a safe and comfortable working environment in order to perform well (Overhaus 2002). Most of the University staff loved their working environment and hence, recorded higher performance than those who were not comfortable. In addition, the discrimination against race, color, and religion also affects the employee performance. Some managers treat employees outside their race unfairly and end up performing poorly at work while those from same tribe always record high performances and receives promotions.
Finally, the level of efficiency and professionalism of an employee affects their performances. A more efficient and bright employee will always perform duties in professional and efficient manner compared to an employee who is slow in understanding instructions. The degree of an employee technical efficiency determines the actual output level in relation to what is achieved. Technical efficiency at workplaces takes place when an employee output level satisfies or closely reaches what is termed as best practice. Given equal motivation and all the resources, different employees will perform differently under the same working environment. Proficient and efficient employees tend to be fast in implementing any type of work provided and in a perfect manner. On the other hand, changes within an organization affect the level of performance of an employee due to the time taken to undertake the change. Employees who are slow at adapting changes, especially changes in technology, find it hard to cope with others since it affects their work output resulting into low performance.
Generally, several factors affect the rate of performance of employees in an organization doing similar job. Douglas McGregor developed the ‘Theory X, Theory Y) theory that touches on human motivation. The “Theory X, Theory Y” interprets human nature into two, X and Y. The first element, “Theory X” assumes that human beings were born lazy and this makes them run away from work responsibilities. This nature of human beings makes them perform differently as some people tend to work just for the sake while others work to reach a given target. Secondly, “Theory Y” claims that individual effort to work comes naturally. This aspect of the theory claims that people always apply self-control and self-direction in performing a duty without any natural or artificial force agent. Following this argument, employees will always have different capacities when it comes to performance depending on the amount of effort a person puts to perform any given duty (McGregor & Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006).
What makes some employees seem better satisfied in their jobs than others? 920
Employee motivation is the key success to high retention of employees in an organization. Poor employee motivation incentives lead to people moving away from their home countries and settling in foreign countries where employment rules are favorable (Sunil 2004). An employee who retains a job is also satisfied with the management, supervision, and the working environment. Job satisfaction and effective commitment are the basic variables in a working environment that determines employees’ turnover (Derek et al 2007). An employee needs to have total job security in a working environment because it gives him or her guarantee of working in a certain company or institution. Various factors make some employees in an organization seem better satisfied in their jobs than others do. The level and type of motivation adopted by the management determines these factors.
The first factor that contributes to employees being more satisfied in their jobs than others is salary. The main aim of working is to receive a certain amount of reward after an agreed period. The amount of salary received by a particular employee determines the amount of satisfaction with the work. If the salary given matches the employee demands, then the employee will be more satisfied and perform given duties with passion (Spector 1997). On the other hand, an employee who receives little amount of salary in comparison with the type of duties given and the level of proficiency will always feel uncomfortable. Uncomfortable employees keep looking for greener pastures and once an opportunity emerges, they just terminate their work and join a well paying organization (Salary, Compensation and Work Satisfaction Study 2003).
The research carried out in Sultan Qaboos University senior staff provided a chance for the respondents to give their views on the salary, allowances, and other modes of compensation offered by the university management. From the results obtained, different employees presented different levels of satisfaction with a few number being very dissatisfied. The Expectancy Theory plays a major role in explaining the effect of salary and other allowances on the level of satisfaction of an employee. According to the theory, an individual makes a heavy choice when deciding to work for an organization with an expectation of getting something substantial in return. The Expectancy Theory still argues that employee behavior focuses more on pleasure and less on the negative outcome of a choice and towards the end benefits of the choice made. The manner in which an employee makes a choice capable of taking him or her into the right direction depends on three specific factors. These factors are effort, performance, and outcomes (Smith & Hitt 2005; 55-71).
Looking at the three factors, most employees at Sultan Qaboos University recorded positive relationship with their supervisors and coworkers an indication that they always put more effort in their duties. Secondly, a clear look at some top employees shows that their performance was impressive. The outcome determines whether a person is satisfied or dissatisfied. Most number of employees were either satisfied or were on the average mark. Only 4 out of 100 were very satisfied. The above results show that the outcome of employee’s effort was not fully recognized by the employer hence, causing different levels of satisfaction.
Job security also has an effect on employee satisfaction in a workplace. The benefits of employees might be well documented but a question on whether one is job secure or insecure is a crucial compliment. Job insecurity creates a negative involvement in workplace duties because an individual thinks more about securing another job and not about the duties assigned. The situation makes some employees seem to work just for the sake while others work with a lot of confidence (Rao Subba 2005). The Conceptual Model of Antecedes of Employee Satisfaction examines the relationship between job satisfaction and job security among other factors. According to the model, employee job satisfaction relates directly with job expectations. Job security motivates an employee to work hard and feel more satisfied with the type of work assigned. In addition, employees who are more secure in their jobs have high productivity than those who are not. Sirota and Mischkind (2006), defines three set of goals that most workers seek from their workplaces. These goals are:
- Equity: workers expect respect and fair treatment in such areas as benefits, payments, and job security. A slight difference in any of the three elements leads into different perceptions of work.
- Achievement: An employee likes working in an organization where the employer recognizes personal accomplishments. When an employer fails to recommend an employee for an accomplishment made leads into lack of trust on job leading to dissatisfaction.
- Comradeship: This involves good relationship with fellow workers. Workplace relationship makes employees more secure in their jobs because they believe that their colleagues will stand by them in times of difficulties.
All the three factors have a common goal of providing an employee with a sense of security in a workplace where they are not afraid of losing their jobs at any time especially when their performances are not pleasing. In addition, employees expect to work in an environment where the management uses other options apart from layoffs when faced with hard times (Sirota and Mischkind 2006).
The final factor the makes some employees seem more satisfied in their jobs than others is instrumentality. Instrumentality refers to a situation whereby an employee’s estimate of probability that achieving a certain level of performance will result into increased probability of getting a certain reward. Employee satisfaction in work place is divided into two dimensions, the intrinsic and extrinsic. The intrinsic satisfaction relates to rewards offered internally such as satisfaction with work and other opportunities for personal accomplishment and growth (Armstrong and Murlis 20070. The extrinsic satisfaction refers to rewards offered to an employee for perfect work done such as pay increase, family support by the organization, promotion, or any other reward of the kind. In addition, the role that an employee’s position in a workplace plays in the society is a source of job satisfaction (Anonymoua 2001). In what ways can management create a job satisfaction for its employees? 900
Maslow came up with a motivation theory referred to as the Hierarchy of Needs that identifies five levels of needs necessary for individual motivation. These levels are Physiological, Safety, Social, Esteem and Self-actualization. In order for employee to perform better, all these levels must be met in order of individual needs. By adapting this theory, the management will create a perfect working environment where all employees will be satisfied with their work. Three major elements of Maslow Hierarchy of needs are importance for ensuring the management meets employees’ needs. To start with, Maslow starts with physiological needs. The management must understand the physical needs of every employee in respect to color, race, denomination, and culture. Employees are more satisfied after meeting their first and most basic needs. Hence, the management should make sure they give employees sufficient payments to enable them meet the physiological needs (Gunter, B. & Furnham 2012).
Secondly, the management should cater for employees’ safety and security. As mentioned above, job security is one of the major contributors of employee satisfaction in a workplace. By assuring employees of their safety and that of the job, the management will be creating total job satisfaction. The final element of the Maslow hierarchy of needs is love and belongingness. Employees love working in an environment where love prevails and where the manager-employee relationship is tight. By maintaining a tight relationship between employees and the management, employees will have no reason to complain of harsh working conditions leading to more job satisfaction (Loh, Schapper & Wrathall 2000).
According to Mabey and Finch-Lees (2009), for individual and professional development to occur in an effective manner, a reliable and efficient feedback with regard to job performance is very crucial. However, this feedback needs to come from various sources. Thus, it is good for the management to adopt an all-round feedback system for them to achieve desirable results. The system has a characterization of sourcing for feedback from all corners within the organization. Sultan Qaboos University management, therefore, needs to adopt the system, for effective identification of various training needs of the organization, and structuring of a fair promotion and reward program for employees (Gamble & Thompson 2013).
In addition, the management can use these feedbacks in managing performance appraisal for employees. The management needs to come up with a program that gives rewards to employees who show outstanding performance in their duties. By doing so, the management will create a competitive environment where every employee would need to be rewarded. This will improve their productivity and work output will increase. On the other hand, performance appraisal gives employees a sense of belonging to a certain organization making them more satisfied with their jobs (Centre for Organization and Workforce effectiveness n.d; Grote 2002; 56-58).
In the ensuring total employee satisfaction in work place, the management needs an effective coaching on their roles and expectations in the company. In addition, the process should enable the management; develop a positive perception, with regard to various international, as well as cultural impacts of the work that they perform. The program further needs to create a room for the leaders and managers to interact effectively, so that they may share individual experiences and skills for a better, personal-to-personal development (Davies 1994). The following process will ensure that employees know their duties and responsibilities at work place eliminating instances where a supervisor quarrels with an employee. In absence of quarrels and conflicts, employees will be comfortable working in the institution and feel more secure.
In analyzing employees’ performance, the management should adapt five variables. These variables are; the environmental conditions, the input, the performer’s ability, the corrective feedback, and motivation process (Kosteas 2009). The following variables will enable the management conduct an effective evaluation of employee’s performances that forms an important aspect in determining areas that require improvement. The process must have a balance between environmental assets and human assets. In addition, the world keeps on changing and the management should put in place instruments that are modern and give employees a suitable working environment (Maroney 2013). The management should be able to adapt technological changes quickly and train employees on the new development. Through such initiatives, employees will have a sense of belonging and love working in the organization for long (Dessinger 2006).
References list
ANONYMOUS. (2001). What drives employee satisfaction? Community Banker, 10(7): 42-43.
ARMSTRONG M. AND MURLIS, H. (2007). Rewards Management: A Handbook of
Remuneration Strategy and Practice. London: Kogan Pages Limited.
BASSET-JONES, N. & Lloyd, G.C. (2005).“Does Herzbergs Motivational Theory have staying
power”? Journal of Management Development, Vol.24, No.10, pp. 57-56
CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION AND WORKFORCE EFFECTIVENESS. (n.d). Performance
Management Toolkit. Retrieved from:
http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/files/attachments/Performance-Management-Toolkit.pdf
DAVIES, I. K. (1994). Process Re-Design For Enhanced Human Performance. Perf.
Improvement Qrtly, 7: 103–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1994.tb00642.x, pp. 103-114
DEREK, A. R., PATRICK F, M., & WILSON, D. C. (2007), “Engaging the aging workforce:
The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 92(6), 1542-1556.
DESSINGER, J. C., & Moseley, J. L. (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology:
Principles, Practices, and Potential. The Third Edition, San Francisco: Wiley
EDWARDS, A. L. (1984). An introduction to linear regression and correlation (2nd ed.). New
York: W.H. Freeman.
ENDRES G. M., AND MANCHENO-SMOAK L. (2008). The Human resource Craze: Human
Performance Improvement and Employee Engagement. Organizational Development Journal, Spring 2008; 26, 1; ABI/ INFORM Global pg 69-78
GAMBLE & THOMPSON, (2009). Essentials of Strategic Management, Retrieved from:
http://www.seca.net/2010%20-%20Essentials%20of%20Strategic%20Management.pdf
GONRIG, M. P. (2008). “Customer loyalty and Employee Engagement: An Alignment For
Value”, Journal of Business Strategy, 29, 29-40.
GROTE, R. (2002). The performance appraisal question and answer book. United States.
AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
GUNTER, B. & FURNHAM, A. (2012). “Biographical and Climate Predictors of Job
Satisfaction and Pride in Organization”, The Journal of Psychology. 1(10), 12-16.
HERZBERG, F. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, Wiley
HOWELL, D.C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). USA: Duxbury.
IVANCEVICH, J. M. (2010). Human resource management, (11th Ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw Hill/Irwin.
KOSTEAS, V. .D. (2009). Job Satisfaction and Promotions. Social science research network, pp.
1-2.
LATHAM, G. (2007). Work motivation: history, theory, research, and practice. USA.
Sage Publications, Inc.
LOH, D., SCHAPPER, J., & WRATHALL, J. (2000). The Maslow revival: Maslow's hierarchy
of needs as a motivational theory. Caulfield, Vic.: Monash University, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management.
SMITH, K. G., & HITT, M. A. (2005). Great minds in management: the process of theory
development. Oxford, Oxford University Press
KIMMONs, R. (2012). Characteristics of an Ideal Performance. Retrieved from:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6361838_characteristics-ideal-performance-management-system.html
MABEY, C, & FINCH-LEES, T. (2009). Management and Leadership Development. The Sage
Handbook of Human Resource Management. London: Sage
MARONEY. (2013). “Employee Motivation - The 5 Master Keys for Success”, How to build
employee motivation by creating an environment that rewards excellence at every level. Retrieved from:
http://www.jpmaroney.com/Free-Articles/employee-motivation.htm
MCGREGOR, D., & CUTCHER-GERSHENFELD, J. (2006). The human side of enterprise.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. pp. 300-324
MULLINS, L. (2002). Management and organisational behaviour, Prentice Hall FT
Management System. Retrieved from:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6361838_characteristics-ideal-performance-management-system.html
OVERHAUS, M. (2002). Equity derivatives theory and applications. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=85502.
RAO SUBBA P. (2005). Essential of HRM & Industrial Relationships, pp. 480-482.
Salary, compensation and work satisfaction study. (2003). Chicago, IL: Society for Healthcare
Strategy and Market Development.
SMALL BUSINESS. (2013). The Supervisor's Impact on Employee Engagement. Retrieved
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/supervisors-impact-employee-engagement-14673.html
SIROTA, D., & MISCHKIND, L. A. (2006). Stop demotivating your employees! Harvard
Management Update, 11(1): 3-6.
SPECTOR, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: application, assessment, cause, and consequences.
USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
STONE, R. J. (2002). Human Resource Management (2nd Ed). John Wiley & Sons, pp. 15-22.
