Content uploaded by Rafikul Islam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rafikul Islam on Dec 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Employee motivation: a Malaysian
perspective
Rafikul Islam and Ahmad Zaki Hj. Ismail
Department of Business Administration,
International Islamic University Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the motivating factors of employees working in
various Malaysian organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey method was adopted. The survey questionnaire
consisted of two parts: respondents’ personal information were obtained through Part A and in Part B,
they were asked to rank the ten motivating factors in terms of their effectiveness. The motivating
factors were compiled from the existing literature and refined through consultation with human
resource professionals.
Findings – An ordered set of motivating factors for employees working in Malaysian organizations.
Demographic factors like gender, race, education, etc. were found to have impact on the ranking of the
factors.
Originality/value – The findings are expected to provide useful guidelines to managers while
developing employee motivation programs.
Keywords Motivation (psychology), Employee involvement, Job satisfaction, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The term motivation is derived from the Latin word “movere” which means to move.
Motivation is what moves us from boredom to interest. It is like the steering wheel of a
vehicle that directs our activities. Motivation represents those psychological processes
that cause the arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary activities that are goal
oriented (Mitchell, 1982). Bartol and Martin (1998) define motivation as a force that
energizes behavior, gives direction to behavior, and underlies the tendency to persist.
This definition recognizes that in order to achieve goals, individuals must be
sufficiently stimulated and energetic, must have a clear focus on what is to be achieved,
and must be willing to commit their energy for a long enough period of time to realize
their aim. Since, a leading function of management involves influencing others to work
toward organizational goals, motivation is an important aspect of that function.
Stewart (1986) cites John Harvey-Jones, chief executive of ICI: “the real purpose of
management is motivation of the group to use its energy to achieve objectives.” Steers
and Porter (1983, p. 32) write:
Managers have the responsibility to create a proper climate in which employees can develop
to their fullest potential. Failure to provide such a climate would theoretically increase
employee frustration and could result in poorer performance, lower job satisfaction, and
increased withdrawal from the organization.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1056-9219.htm
The authors express sincere thanks and gratitude to all the respondents for their participation in
the survey.
IJCOMA
18,4
344
International Journal of Commerce
and Management
Vol. 18 No. 4, 2008
pp. 344-362
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1056-9219
DOI 10.1108/10569210810921960
In today’s highly competitive labor market, there is extensive evidence that
organizations regardless of size, technological advances, market focus, are facing
retention challenges (Ramlall, 2004). Fitz-enz (1997) stated that the average company
loses approximately $1 million with every ten managerial and professional employees
who leave the organization combined with the direct and indirect costs; the total cost of
an exempt employee’s turnover is a minimum of one year’s pay and benefits. Ahmad
and Bakar (2003) mention that voluntary turnover is a major problem for companies in
some Asian countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, etc. Job-hopping has
become so rampant in these Asian countries that it has, in part, become culture.
Ramlall (2004, p. 52) writes:
Given the large investments in employee retention efforts within organizations, it is rational
to identify, analyze and critique the motivation theories underlying employee retention in
organizations.
Motivation constitutes a central element when going through the process of human
learning. If the organization does not possess the ability to motivate its employees, the
knowledge within the organization is not practically used to a maximum. Therefore, it
becomes the aim of every learning organization to find the factors that enable it to
motivate its employees to continuous learning and to take advantage of this knowledge
to ensure its living (Osteraker, 1999). In today’s business environment, the future
belongs to those managers who can best manage change. To manage change,
organizations must have employees committed to the demand of rapid change and as
such committed employees are the source of competitive advantage (Dessler, 1993).
It is unlikely that employees will be committed if they are not sufficiently motivated.
During the last 70 years, many psychologists and management gurus have conducted
extensive research on various aspects of employees’ motivation. For completeness of
the paper, here we provide a brief account of the pioneering works.
Theories of employee motivation
Bartol and Martin (1998) have classified the major theories in motivation into three
categories: needs theory, cognitive theory, and reinforcement theory. The most popular
needs theory is owing to Abraham Maslow (Maslow, 1970) and it is known as
Maslow’s motivation theory of hierarchical needs. The hierarchy includes five basic
levels of needs, which should be satisfied consecutively.
Alderfer (1972) proposed an alternative to Maslow’s theory known as ERG theory.
He consolidated five levels of Maslow’s hierarchy into three levels: existence (E),
relatedness (R), and growth (G). Existence needs include physiological factors such as
food, shelter, clothes, good pay, fringe benefits, good working conditions, etc.
Relatedness needs address our relationship with others such as families, friends, work
groups, etc. Growth needs are associated with Maslow’s last two levels, i.e. self-esteem
and self-actualization.
Herzberg et al. (1959) developed the 2-factor (motivators and hygiene factors) theory
in employee motivation. Herzberg (1968) argued that eliminating the cause of
dissatisfaction (through hygiene factors) would not result in a state of satisfaction.
Satisfaction (or motivation) would occur only as a result of the use of motivators. On the
other hand, McClelland (1985) studied three types of needs: achievement, affiliation,
and power. One of the best known cognitive theories, known as expectancy theory
Employee
motivation
345
originally proposed by Victor H. Vroom argues that the strength of a tendency to act
in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed
by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual
(Robbins, 1993).
Equity theory recognizes that individuals are concerned not only with the absolute
amount of rewards they receive for their efforts, but also with the relationship of this
amount to what others receive. Based on one’s inputs, such as effort, experience,
education, and competence, one can compare outcomes such as pay, recognition and
other factors. When people perceive an imbalance in their outcome-input ratio relative
to others, tension is created. Equity theory rests upon three main assumptions (Carrell
and Dittrich, 1978). First, the theory holds that people develop beliefs about what
constitutes a fair and equitable return for their contributions of their jobs. Second, the
theory assumes that people tend to compare what they perceive to be the exchange they
have with their employers. The other assumption is that when people believe that their
own treatment is not equitable relative to the exchange they perceive others to be
making, they will be taking actions that they deem appropriate.
According to the goal-setting theory, if people are provided with a goal followed by
a reward, then they will be motivated. The goals should be specific and measurable,
challenging but attainable, relevant to the organization and must be accomplished
within a specific period of time. It is usually considered as a powerful motivational tool.
The reinforcement theories (originally proposed by B.F. Skinner) are actually the
antithesis of cognitive theories in the sense that the theories do not relate with human
thought process. According, to the reinforcement theory, our behavior can be explained
by consequences in the environment, and therefore, it is not necessary to look for
cognitive explanations. Instead, the theory relies heavily on a concept called the
law of effect, that states behaviors having pleasant or positive consequences are
more likely to be repeated and behaviors having unpleasant or negative consequences
are less likely to be repeated (Bartol and Martin, 1998).
The theories mentioned above continue to provide the foundation for a significant
amount of organization and managerial development practices. In addition to the
above theories, during the last decade, numerous studies have been made on
employees’ motivation of which a brief account has been provided below.
Literature review
Lord (2002) contends that retention and productivity of workers is a function of their
motivation. The author examines the responses from 29 engineers over the age of 55
regarding factors in the workplace and their effects on the retention and productivity of
senior engineers. In his study, the main motivators are found to be accomplishment, job
responsibility, recognition, etc. The author concludes by saying that successful
application of motivators improves job satisfaction and therefore increases
productivity. In a separate study, Wright (2001) does not find any convincing
evidence in support of the following two assumptions:
(1) The characteristics of public sector employees in working environment are
different to the private sector.
(2) Those differences have a meaningful impact upon work motivation.
IJCOMA
18,4
346
The author concludes that public employee perceptions of weak relationship between
reward and performance, greater procedural constraints and goal ambiguity may have
a detrimental effect on their work motivation.
Rowley (1996) seeks to identify issues that have impact on the motivation of
academic staff in higher education. In referring to the hygiene factors of Herzberg, the
author mentions that frustration may develop from dissatisfaction which prevents
staff from doing a good job, including poor timetable organization, inadequate
maintenance of educational equipments, or too many assorted demands on their time.
Peterson and Quintanilla (2003) link intrinsic motivation to socialization into social
work values and norms with respect to the main organizational applications of
intrinsic motivation, namely cognitive evaluation theory and job characteristic theory.
They suggest that individual acceptance of societal values and norms that support
productive work behavior contribute to intrinsic work motivation beyond what these
theories would predict.
Mani (2002) surveyed four types of employees namely, ground workers, library
clerks, patient relation representatives, and medical record assistants working at East
Carolina University to know their motivation. The author found that good pay and
recognition were the most effective motivators. On the other hand, benefits, working
environment, co-workers also have effects on motivation but not as strong as the
previous two. Milliken (1996) has described the Eastman Chemical Company way to
motivate and retain its employees. The programs adopted are job security,
performance-based appraisal system, extrinsic recognition through employee
suggestion system, giving performance feedback, training in problem solving, etc.
Kovach (1995) discusses the ranking of ten motivational factors made by the
employees and their immediate supervisors. The author finds that the rankings
made by the supervisors are significantly different to those made by the employees. He
concludes that managers make mistakes by thinking that what will motivate them will
also motivate the employees. In the context of international marketing channels,
Mehta, Dubinsky and Anderson (2003) have examined the linkages among various
leadership styles, motivation, and performance on data drawn from a sample of
automobile dealers in USA, Finland, and Poland. The authors propose that the adopted
leadership style and motivating factors should be in congruence with the national
culture.
Ross (2002) assessed the motivation of chefs in seven New South Wales (Australia)
hospitals by comparing the perceived presence of job dimensions and motivational
outcomes (private and public). He found that chefs employed in smaller private sector
hospital kitchens appear satisfied with their work, but this is not the case for public
sector hospitals.
Kaufmann, Davies, and Schmidt (1994) have described the motivation gap among
the East German employees immediately after reunification with West Germany. They
also describe the measures taken by the government to address the issue. Eskildsen,
Kristensen and Westlund (2004) studied the differences in intrinsic work motivation
and job satisfaction among employees with different characteristics working in Nordic
countries. The authors found that job satisfaction and intrinsic work motivation have a
nearly linear relationship with age and that the employees with higher education
reported higher level of intrinsic work motivation. Sarri and Trihopoulou (2005) have
investigated the personal characteristics and motivation of female Greek entrepreneurs
Employee
motivation
347
in order to assist Greek policy makers in their future attempts to devise programs to
support women entrepreneurs in the start-up phase. The study confirms that female
entrepreneurs in Greek are motivated to undertake entrepreneurship mainly by factors
that relate to economic reasons and self-fulfillment, including the needs for creativity,
autonomy, and independence.
In addition to Greece, Sarri and Trihopoulou (2005) have also reviewed the case of
some other European countries’ female entrepreneurs. The authors mention that even
though motives differ depending on the country, time period, and group of women, the
prevalent trend in most European countries is pull factors as opposed to “no other
choice.” In Italy, female entrepreneurs tend to fall within the “life style entrepreneurs”
category, meaning they are motivated by being in control of the choice of the kind of
work they undertake in order to apply their knowledge and develop their expertise.
A survey designed by Hogeschool van Amsterdam (1994), reports that the most
frequently cited motives for women to start a business are: economic independence
(47 percent), combining work and family (17 percent), and wanting to be one’s own
master (16 percent). In Portugal, “personal achievement” was found to be a women’s
driving force for starting a business.
During the last decade, China has attained phenomenal growth in economy.
Establishment of foreign companies has significantly contributed to this growth.
However, there has been an issue of motivation of Chinese workers in these foreign
companies. Lu et al. (1997) reported that Chinese managers saw the highest cause of
difficulties being expatriate managers without knowledge of the Chinese environment
and the second highest cause being different management style. Jackson and Bak
(1998) write: “It may be that Western concepts of motivation are not relevant in a
socialist China, where people have been motivated perhaps only to do what was the
best for the country with little overlap in practice to industrial productivity.” The
authors reemphasized Katz and Kahn’s (1978) model of “rule enforcement”, “external
reward’, and “internalized motivation’ for Chinese workers.
In another paper, Bjoerkman and Lu (1997) reported that at a recent round table
discussion with the government of China, 59 percent of participants from foreign
invested enterprises (FIE) concluded that recruiting and retaining managers
(a significant input into human resource management) was the most significant
problem facing FIEs in China. Leung and Clegg (2001) have found that the younger
executives working in the public sector in Hong Kong have higher level of career
motivation and are striving to attain additional responsibility and authority in work
assignment, while senior executives are concerned with holding their previous
accomplishment and competence in their occupational role. The authors have also
found that the more the ambiguity and uncertainty exist in the government offices, the
lesser is the level of career motivation.
In an exploratory study, Kubo and Saka (2002) identify the three factors: monetary
incentive, human resource development, and job autonomy that play as motivators to
the knowledge workers working in the Japanese financial sector. In the past 20 years,
there has been an 80.3 percent increase in women entrepreneurs in Singapore compared
to 65.6 percent increase of male entrepreneurs. Lee (1997) has investigated the
motivation behind female entrepreneurs and found four factors namely, achievement,
affiliation, autonomy, and dominance behind this motivation.
IJCOMA
18,4
348
Ahmad and Singh (2001) have identified key challenges faced by Malaysian
managers working in various companies. They have also provided guidelines to the
Malaysian managers to motivate their subordinates. Ahamd (2001) has discussed the
common observations on how managers belonging to different ethnic groups, viz.,
Malays, Chinese, and Indians make decisions and motivate employees. Further, the
author examines the impact of cultural values of the above ethnic groups on the
leadership and motivational practices of Malaysian companies who employ Malays,
Chinese, and Indian workers. Referring to a number of published works on leadership
and motivation, he mentions that (p. 84):
[...] most of the studies with the exception of one by Asma Abdullah are either general or
specific to one country and are not applicable to the Malaysian context. Such human resource
management and leadership theories may lead to practices which are not directly transferable
to other countries like Malaysia, owing to cultural differences.
Ahmad and Bakar (2003) have explained the relationship between training and
organizational commitment among Malaysian managers. In particular, in one of the
five hypotheses, the authors tested the relationship between motivation to learn in
training and organizational commitment. The authors concluded that motivation to
learn in training was found to be significantly and positively related with affective,
narrative, and overall organizational commitment.
All the research findings that were applicable to the workers working in the Western
countries may not be valid for the Malaysian workers. For example, Ahmad and Bakar’s
(2003) findings on Malaysian employees for the relationship between age and tenure with
the organizational commitment contradicts the findings on the Western workers (Lok and
Crawford, 2001; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). The authors say (2003, p.181) that:
[...] Malaysians have different attitudes towards organizational commitment. The older they
are and the longer they stay within an organization do not imply that they will be committed
towards their organization. This can be mainly attributed to the uncertain business
environment in Malaysia.
Research methodology
If an employee lacks skills, appropriate training can be employed. If there is an
environmental problem, altering the environment to promote higher performance is the
key. However, if motivation is the problem, the solution is more complex and more
challenging (Wiley, 1997). For motivational problems, the best source of information is
the employee himself/herself. Employees must be asked on a regular basis what sparks
and sustains their desire to work. Their responses may lead the employer to redesign
jobs, increase pay, change the working environment, or give more credit for the work
done. The key is, however, that managers avoid the assumption that what motivates
them motivates their employees as well (Wessler, 1984).
One of the first surveys on employees’ motivation was conducted in 1946 on
industrial employees by the Labor Relations Institute of New York (Hersey and
Blanchard, 1969). The respondents were asked to rank factors in terms of their
perceived effectiveness to motivate them. The factors were:
.Full appreciation of work done.
.Interesting work.
Employee
motivation
349
.Feeling of being in on things.
.Good working conditions.
.Good wages.
.Sympathetic help with personal problems.
.Personal or company loyalty to employees.
.Promotion and growth in the organization.
.Job security.
Again in the US context, the survey was repeated in 1980 (Kovach, 1980), in 1986
(Kovach, 1987) and in 1992 (Wiley, 1997). The 1992 survey consisted of ten factors;
tactful discipline was added with the previously quoted nine factors. The objective of the
present research is to get the ranking of the same set of motivators from the Malaysian
employees. This is to see whether or not difference exists between the two sets of
ranking. To know the preference level on these factors, a survey was conducted in which
505 employees working at over 96 various Malaysian organizations participated. The
survey questionnaire was designed in consultation with two professors in Human
Resource Management from the authors’ department. Subsequently, the questionnaire
was pilot tested on 15 employees. The questionnaire had two parts. In part A, the
respondents were asked to furnish their demographic details, e.g. gender, race, age,
education level, marital status, type of employment (public or private), type of work
(executive or non-executive), etc.
In part B, the respondents were asked to rank the ten motivating factors in terms of
their effectiveness. The exact statement in the questionnaire was, “Please rank the
following motivating factors in terms of effectiveness from your point of view. Most
effective motivator[1], rank ¼1, second most effective motivator, rank ¼2, etc. the
least effective of the ten factors will receive the rank 10”. In the pilot survey, we observed
that some respondents used the same rank for more than one factor. To avoid the
problem in the actual survey, we added the following line with the previous statement:
“Please do not use same rank for more than one factor. One sample is (assigned at
random): 5, 1, 8, 10, 4, 3, 7, 6, 2, 9 ” Despite this additional guideline, in the actual survey,
12 completed questionnaires were not useable. The number of useable questionnaires is,
as stated before, 505. Table I provides the demographic information of the respondents.
In part A, respondents were also asked to write the name and address of the
organization where they were working. But to keep the responses absolutely
anonymous, writing the name of the company was kept optional. Among 505
respondents, only 273 respondents wrote the names of their companies. We obtained 96
names of companies, but actually, the number of companies for all the respondents in
this survey was certainly more than 96. The types of companies/organizations obtained
were: academic, airlines, automotive, banking, construction, financial, government
agencies, insurance, various types of manufacturing, petroleum, retailing,
telecommunication, transportation, utility, etc. All the respondents were contacted
personally and obtained their responses.
Results and discussion
Table II shows mean, standard deviation, 95 percent confidence interval for the means
and overall rank of the ten motivating factors. Ranking has been determined based
IJCOMA
18,4
350
Variable
a
Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 279 55.46
Female 224 44.54
Race
Malay 367 72.96
Chinese 54 10.74
Indian 28 05.57
Others 54 10.73
Age group
20 years or below 1 0.002
21-25 years 68 13.49
26-30 years 134 26.59
31-35 years 144 28.57
36-40 years 68 13.49
41-50 years 78 15.48
51 years and above 11 2.18
Highest level of education
Certificate 142 28.69
Professional 39 07.88
Bachelors 228 46.06
Masters 56 11.31
PhD 30 06.06
Marital status
Single 162 32.14
Married 342 67.86
No. of children (for married respondents only)
1-2 156 30.89
3-5 122 24.16
6 or more 7 1.14
Type of the company
Manufacturing 65 13.21
Service 427 86.79
Employee size of the company
Less than 100 134 26.80
100-200 44 08.80
200-500 81 16.20
More than 500 241 48.20
No. of years the company exists
Less than 5 years 80 16.10
5-10 years 119 23.94
10-20 years 141 28.37
More than 20 years 157 31.59
Type of employment
Public 182 36.69
Private 203 61.08
Self-employed 11 2.23
Working as
Executive 362 73.87
Non-executive 128 26.13
No. of years the company served
Less than 3 years 206 41.36
3-5 years 65 13.05
5-10 years 132 26.51
More than 10 years 95 19.08
Note:
a
Missing entries are not considered in the table
Table I.
Respondents’
demographic information
Employee
motivation
351
upon the mean value of the factors. The lower the mean, the higher is the rank. The
smallest and the largest mean values are observed to be 3.7996 (high wages) and 8.1190
(management’s help to solve personal problems), so their respective ranks are 1 and 10.
From the table, we observe that the six most effective motivating factors are the
following:
(1) High wages.
(2) Good working conditions.
(3) Promotion.
(4) Job security.
(5) Interesting work.
(6) Full appreciation of work done.
All the above factors were included in the surveys conducted in the USA in 1946, 1980,
1986, and 1992. Table III provides a comparison of the results.
From Table III, the following observations can be made:
In all the three surveys conducted in the US in 1946, 1980, and 1986, high wages was
placed in the fifth position among the ten motivating factors; however, in 1992 it
jumped to the number one slot. This means that, of late, money has been a strong
Factors
1946
(US)
1980
(US)
1986
(US)
1992
(US)
2004
(Malaysia)
High wages 5 5 5 1 1
Good working conditions 9 7 7 7 2
Promotion 7 6 6 4 3
Job security 4 4 4 3 4
Interesting work 6 1 1 5 5
Full appreciation of work done 1 2 2 2 6
Management help to solve personal problems 3 9 10 10 10
Table III.
A comparison of the
ranks of the motivating
factors for US and
Malaysian employees
Motivator Mean SD
Confidence interval
(95 percent) Rank
Job security 4.6250 2.8256 (4.37, 4.87) 4
Promotion 4.5040 2.7011 (4.26, 4.74) 3
Good working condition 4.2103 2.2977 (4.01, 4.41) 2
High wages 3.7996 2.8025 (3.55, 4.04) 1
Interesting work 4.9107 2.4877 (4.69, 5.13) 5
Management’s help to solve personal problems 8.1190 2.1874 (7.93, 8.31) 10
Full appreciation of work done 5.6270 2.5072 (5.41, 5.84) 6
Sensible company rules, regulations, procedures, and
policies 7.1587 2.5361 (6.94, 7.38) 9
Providing opportunities to grow through learning
new things 5.6567 2.5821 (5.43, 5.88) 7
Job responsibility 6.3651 2.5902 (6.14, 6.59) 8
Table II.
Ranking of the
motivators: Malaysian
perspective
IJCOMA
18,4
352
motivating factor for US industrial workers. This contradicts many people’s belief.
Darling et al. (1997, p. 1) write:
At one time, money was considered the best employee motivation technique. But today, the
use of money as motivation has several strikes against it. The impact of a monetary reward is
often short-lived. Non-cash rewards of high intrinsic recognition value – such as merchandise
credits or time off – often work better. When given a cash incentive, an employee may spend
the money on groceries or the electric bill. If merchandise is offered, however, employees will
constantly be reminded of the incentive each time they look at the gift.
Human resource consultant Sullivan (2000, p. 36) writes:
I have never been a big fan of awarding small cash reward as a prize, because it has no
“trophy’ value. If you hand a team member a $29 bill as a gesture of gratitude, the emotional
buzz lasts anywhere from 12-15 s. The cash goes into the wallet and disappears.
Despite the above statements, money is still considered as an effective motivator.
Wiley (1997, p. 271) justifies the top rank for high wages in 1992 survey as follows:
Over these years the industries and economics changed, and so did the workers values.
By 1946 and 1986, after almost 40 years of relative prosperity, workers had experienced a
significant rise in their living standards. By the 1990s after the acquisitions and mergers of
the previous three decades in response to intensified competition, it is not surprising that the
importance placed on various motivational factors had changed.
Further, he maintains that the external environment has placed many workers in a
position of insecurity and uncertainty. In such time, basic needs may be regarded as
most important motivators. Furthermore, Wiley finds good wages as the No.1
motivator regardless of gender, occupation, age, income or employment status. Citing
Maslow’s hierarchy theory, he writes (p. 277):
With respect to the Hierarchy of Needs Theory, pay is an important reward because it may
satisfy several of the needs in the hierarchy. It provides employees with the means to
purchase items which satisfy their physiological needs, and it enables them to meet their
esteem needs, since it is one measure of relative worth.
Table III also shows that compared to the US in Malaysia good working condition is
widely favored. Since, money is perceived as a good motivator, it is expected that
promotion will receive higher priority. Indeed, in the US, over the years, promotion has
been continuously pushed to higher priority. So is the case for Malaysia. We observe
that job security has maintained stability in its ranking. We further note that
promotion and job security have interchanged their positions for the two surveys,
Malaysia: 2004 and US: 1992. It seems that contrary to Malaysia, Americans are more
concerned with job security over promotion matters. In the 1980 and 1986 surveys,
“interesting work’ has maintained the middle ranking among the factors in all the
surveys conducted in the US and Malaysia.
It seems that Malaysian workers are not much concerned about the appreciation of
their work done compared to the above factors. This is in sharp contrast to their
counterpart in the US. All the while, “full appreciation of work done” has been
overwhelmingly favored by the American workers. Overall, it is observed that monetary
incentive plays a major role in motivating Malaysian employees. This is clear from the
higher ranks assigned to “high wages” and “promotion”. Therefore, when the question of
choice is put forward, they prefer to go for monetary incentives in lieu of appreciation by
Employee
motivation
353
the management. On the other hand, perhaps American employees are relatively better
paid, so they are more concerned about reward/recognition and appreciation from
the management. However, in both countries, workers are least bothered about the
“management’s help to solve their personal problems”. This conclusion is drawn despite
the fact that it received 3rd rank in the 1946 survey in the US. Over the years,
the employees have been more and more concerned about other factors rather than
favoring management’s help to solve their personal problems.
Table IV reveals some interesting facts. We observe that 27.9 percent of the
respondents articulated “high wages” as their No. 1 motivator; in fact, nearly half
(46.9 percent) of the respondents have said high wages as their either No. 1 or No. 2
motivator. It is to be noted that no other motivator comes even closer to high wages.
After high wages, 17.8 percent (2nd largest) of the respondents have said that their
No. 1 motivator is “job security”, though it holds overall 4th rank. It is clear that the
majority of the respondents 1st and 2nd preferred motivators are high wages
(141 persons) and promotion (105 persons), respectively. This shows again that money
has been a predominantly preferred motivator. It is also to be noted that good working
condition has been uniformly favored through the ranks 1 to 5 and this has brought it
into the 2nd position, ahead of promotion and job security.
Analysis based on demographic factors
Demographic factors of the respondents, e.g. gender, age, education level, etc. may
affect their preference of the motivating factors (here we have used the term
preferences to indicate that if the motivating factors are offered to the employees, then
individually they can rank them (factors) in terms of effectiveness to motivate them).
Kovach (1980) writes:
Individuals at different organization levels, with different earning power, may have different
motivational values. Hence, what motivates individuals at one level of the organization may
not motivate those at another level. This necessitates differentiating by income level and
other demographic factors when analyzing attitudes for motivational purposes.
We have computed ranks of the previously mentioned ten motivating factors
separately based upon: gender (male, female), race (Malay, Chinese, Indian), age (21-25,
26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-50 years), education (certificate, professional, bachelors, masters,
PhD), marital status (married, single), employment status (termed as “working as”)
(executive, non-executive). Details are shown in Table V. The table reveals that the
overall ranking of all the ten factors (see Table II) are more or less corroborated by the
Way
Preference 1 2 3 4 5
1st 141 (27.9) 55 (10.9) 56 (11.1) 90 (17.8) 49 (9.7)
2nd 96 (19.0) 84 (16.6) 105 (20.8) 51 (10.1) 50 (9.9)
3rd 46 (9.1) 87 (17.2) 59 (11.7) 68 (13.5) 65 (12.9)
4th 47 (9.3) 74 (14.7) 64 (12.7) 57 (11.3) 60 (11.9)
5th 37 (7.3) 62 (12.3) 47 (9.30) 53 (10.5) 85 (16.9)
Notes: 1, High wages; 2, Good working condition; 3, Promotion; 4, Job security; 5, Interesting work
Table IV.
Preference level on the
five most preferred ways
of motivators
IJCOMA
18,4
354
people belonging to different levels of the demographic factors. Take the example of
high wages. Its overall rank is 1 and this has been the rank for majority of the people
across various demographic factors. The rank of “management’s help’, which is ten
across all type of people, is exactly the same as the overall rank. Further, the overall
ranks of “sensible company rules’ and “job responsibility’ are nine and eight,
respectively. The corresponding rows in Table V reveal a uniform pattern that match
with the overall ranks. A similar phenomenon is observed for the other factors.
For each combination of levels within each factor, Spearman’s rank correlation
coefficient (RCC) has been computed and corresponding non-parametric hypothesis
test has been performed using SPSS version 11.0. The results have been shown in
Table VI. All the RCCs are significant at p¼0.01. The minimum and maximum RCCs
were found to be 0.782 (Malay and Chinese) and 0.988 (professionals and bachelors),
respectively. The results widely show that the ranks are correlated, i.e. there is no
significant (except Malays and Chinese) difference in the preference on the factors. This
means that the ranking of the factors is statistically same, i.e. it does not depend upon
the demographic factors: gender, race, age, education level, marital and employment
status.
Despite the absence of significant difference in preferences across various
demographic factors, this does not mean that the people with respect to one particular
demographic factor, e.g. gender, i.e. males and females concur on the same rank for all
the ten motivators. In fact, this is not the case. Details are discussed in the following:
.Gender. Though the rank correlation coefficient between the ranks of all the ten
factors made by males and females is 0.915, however, they placed promotion in
ranks 2nd and 5th, respectively, (see Table V). Statistically, males demand
promotion more than females ( p,0.001). On the other hand, females want the
option “sensible company rules’ more than males ( p,0.001), despite the fact
both groups have placed the same rank (9th) on the option. This shows that the
groups differ in terms of mean values (males: 7.50, females: 6.70). No significant
difference in gender was observed in any of the remaining eight factors.
.Race. The factor “opportunity to grow’ has been ranked as 7th, 2nd, and 5th by
Malays, Chinese, and Indians, respectively, (refer to Table V). This shows that
Chinese stro ngly favored the factor compared to Malays and Indians ( p¼0.001).
The matter is also clear from Table VII (the table has been discussed later). In
fact, to the Chinese, the first five motivating factors (arranged in accordance of
preference, vide Table V) are: high wages, opportunities to grow, good working
conditions, promotion, and job security. On promotion matter, Indians (2nd rank)
prefer the motivator significantly ( p,0.05) more than the Chinese (4th rank).
Though Malays rank the factor as 3rd, but no statistical difference between
Malays and Chinese was found. On interesting work, Malays prefer the factor
more than Chinese and Indians.
.Education. It is interesting to observe that Certificate holders have placed high
wages in the 3rd position behind good working conditions and promotion,
whereas professionals, bachelors, and masters degree holders’ first preference is
high wages. Statistically, ( p,0.05) these three groups of respondents prefer
high wages more than Certificate holders. We also observe that Certificate and
PhD holders place the same rank, i.e. 3rd for high wages and 1st rank for good
Employee
motivation
355
Gender Race Age Education
Marital
status Working as
No. Motivator G
1
G
2
R
1
R
2
R
3
A
1
A
2
A
3
A
4
A
5
E
1
E
2
E
3
E
4
E
5
M
1
M
2
W
1
W
2
1 Job security 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 3
2 Promotion 2 5 3 4 2 3 5 2 4 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 3 3 4
3 Condition 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 4 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 1
4 High wages 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2
5 Int. work 5 4 4 7 6 4 3 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5
6 Help 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 Appreciation 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 7 5 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 6
8Rules 99999999999999899 9 9
9 Opportunity 6 7 7 2 5 8 6 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 8
10 Responsibility 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 7
Notes: G
-1
, Male; G
2
, Female; R
1
, Malay; R
2
, Chinese; R
3
, Indian; A
1
, 21-25; A
2
, 26-30; A
3
, 31-35; A
4
, 36-40; A
5
, 40-50 years; E
1
, Certificate; E
2
, Professional; E
3
, Bachelors, E
4
, Masters; E
5
, PhD; M
1
, Single; M
2
, Married;
W
1
, Executive, W
2
, Non-executive
Table V.
Ranking of the
motivators based upon
demographic factors
IJCOMA
18,4
356
Gender Race Age
G
1
G
2
R
1
R
2
R
1
R
3
R
2
R
3
A
1
A
2
A
1
A
3
A
1
A
4
A
1
A
5
A
2
A
3
A
2
A
4
A
2
A
5
A
3
A
4
A
3
A
5
A
4
A
5
0.915 0.782 0.927 0.903 0.905 0.939 0.867 0.867 0.903 0.939 0.830 0.939 0.976 0.927
Education MS WA
E
1
E
2
E
1
E
3
E
1
E
4
E
1
E
5
E
2
E
3
E
2
E
4
E
2
E
5
E
3
E
4
E
3
E
5
E
4
E
5
M
1
M
2
W
1
W
2
0.939 0.952 0.903 0.903 0.988 0.939 0.842 0.952 0.891 0.927 0.939 0.939
Table VI.
Spearman’s rank
correlation coefficients
between each pair of
levels within the
demographic factors
Employee
motivation
357
working conditions. Further, PhD degree holders prefer good working conditions
more than bachelors and masters degree holders (in both the cases, p,0.05).
However, on the same factor, we did not find significant difference between
certificate holders and bachelors ( p¼0.391) or masters ( p¼0.240).
.Marital status. Married and unmarried people significantly differ in promotion
(p¼0.007). As expected, married people prefer the option more than the
unmarried people. No other significant difference is observed in any of the
remaining factors.
.Employment status. We find that executives prefer promotion ( p¼0.011) and
opportunities to grow ( p¼0.037) more than non-executives. On the other hand,
non-executives prefer management’s help to solve personal problems ( p,0.001),
sensible company rules ( p¼0.023) more than the executives.
.Age. Here too many significant differences are observed but we mention below
only less. Except 21-25 years group, the other groups have placed first rank to the
high wages. However, signi ficant difference ( p¼0.023) exists only between 21-25
years group and 26-30 years groups. The group 36-40 years prefer job security
more than the group 21-25 years ( p¼0.018). The group 26-30 years prefers the
motivator interesting work mo re than the group 41-50 years ( p¼0.001).
For demographic factors which have more than two levels, (e.g. race, age, and
education), one-way ANOVA has been performed. The results are discussed above.
Duncan’s multiple comparison test has also been performed to know which pair of
levels differ significantly. Duncan’s homogenous subsets are shown in Table VII.
As expected, the previous observations are attested in the test. For example, on further
opportunity to grow, Malay and Indians belong to one subset whereas Chinese belong
to another. Similarly and somewhat surprisingly, certificate and PhD holders belong to
the same subset for most of the motivating factors.
Subsets for alpha ¼0.05
Demographic factor Motivator 1 2 3
Race Promotion R
3
,R
1
,R
2
*R
1
,R
2
High wages R
2
,R
3
,R
1
R
3
,R
1
Interesting work R
1
,R
2
R
2
,R
3
Help R
1
,R
3
R
1
,R
3
,R
2
Appreciation R
2
,R
1
R
1
,R
3
Opportunity R
2
R
1
,R
3
Premium R
1
,R
3
R
3
,R
2
Age Promotion A
5
,A
4
,A
3
,A
1
A
4
,A
3
,A
1
,A
2
Interesting work A
2
,A
4
,A
1
A
2
,A
4
,A
1
,A
3
A
4
,A
1
,A
3
,A
5
Help A
1
,A
4
,A
3
A
4
,A
1
,A
3
,A
2
,A
5
Education Working condition E
5
,E
1
E
1
,E
2
,E
3
,E
4
High wages E
2
,E
3
,E
4
E
3
,E
4
,E
5
,E
1
Rules E
4
,E
5
,E
1
,E
3
E
5
,E
1
,E
3
,E
2
Note: *For legend, ¼Refer to Table V
Table VII.
Duncan’s multiple
comparison test results
IJCOMA
18,4
358
Managerial implications
How can we motivate people to work? How can we create a situation in which people
can achieve their personal goals while fulfilling the goals of the organization? These
questions are frequently asked by managers. Yet, they make mistakes by assuming
what motivates them, also motivate others. Motivation is an intrinsic matter to a
human being. Since human beings are of widely varied natured, so are their
motivators. Schein (1980) saw human nature as complex, with human needs and
motivation varying according to the different circumstances people face, their life
experiences, expectations, and age. Rowley (1996, p. 11) writes:
The effective manager needs to recognize that different motivators are appropriate for
different staff and that different staff will demonstrate differing inherent levels of motivation
in setting their own targets and striving towards them.
Organizational resources are scarce and all efforts should be made to utilize these
resources in the best possible manner. The staff development plan is expected to
motivate the staff, but if it does not, then there is something wrong. We maintain that
employee involvement is the key in designing an effective motivation program. The
findings of the present research may provide some clue in this regard.
As it has been mentioned before, monetary incentives play an important role
in motivating Malaysian employees irrespective of gender, race, age group, etc. So,
managers are expected to include them in their organizations’ reward and recognition
system. Special attention needs to be paid to the promotion matter. Furthermore, good
working condition has been widely favored by the employees. An employee’s
suggestions system is expected to be in place to know their suggestions in order to
improve organization’s working condition. It is widely known that an effective
suggestion system improves organization’s working conditions and saves
organization’s resources from being wasted (Polzin, 1998; Trunko, 1993).
Managerial actions on the basis of demographic factors are described below:
.Gender. It is noted that females prefer “sensible company rules’ more than males.
Managers are expected to pay more attention to protect the rights of female
employees and all care should be taken to ensure that they are not harassed.
.Race.To motivate Chinese employees, in addition to “high wages’, special
attention should be paid to “opportunity to grow’. Some options are: training on
various issues, attending conferences and workshops, management/team
leadership experience, etc. Job enlargement and enrichment are also relevant
in this regard.
.Education. Employees possessing higher qualifications like PhDs require good
working conditions and job security. Since they are relatively on the upper edge,
they may have plentiful opportunities outside; managers/administrators should
provide a good working condition in retaining them. Special emphasis should be
placed on their reward and recognition and job design.
.Employment status.Though “management’s help to solve personal problems’ is
least preferred among the motivators surveyed, as far as this is concerned,
managers should keep in mind that non-executives need their help more than
executives.
Employee
motivation
359
Conclusions
Productivity improvement requires more than just customer service, technology,
decentralization, or process reengineering. Whether these approaches succeed or fail
will depend largely on the motivation of the employees who are asked to implement
them. Reis and Pen
˜a (2001)) held the view that motivating employees to work in the
twenty-first century with theories conceived in the 1880s and early 1900s is likely not
to be feasible. The world scenario has been changing rapidly. Any management
development program should be incorporating the factors that affect the working lives
of the workers. Furthermore, this kind of programs may fail if the inputs from
employees are not adequately taken into consideration. In fact, people have witnessed
failures of numerous programs even before they are kicked off. We would like to
emphasize that employee involvement is crucial for a successful design of a motivation
program. The present work has provided “guidelines” that are to be seriously
considered at the time of developing employee motivation program. Future works are
expected to be carried out in other countries along the same lines and a possible
comparison with Malaysian setting can be made.
Note
1. Here the term motivator is used not in the sense of Herzberg; the list not only consists of
Herzberg’s motivators but also some hygiene factors.
References
Ahmad, K. (2001), “Corporate leadership and workforce motivation in Malaysia”, International
Journal of Commerce & Management, Vol. 11, pp. 82-101.
Ahmad, K. and Singh, S. (2001), “Leading and motivating a Malaysian workforce”, in Abdullah, A.
and Low, A.H.M. (Eds), Understanding the Malaysian Workforce, Malaysian Institute of
Management, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 4-60.
Ahmad, K.Z. and Bakar, R.A. (2003), “The association between training and organization
commitment among white-collar workforce in Malaysia”, International Journal of Training
& Development, Vol. 7, pp. 166-85.
Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational
Settings, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bartol, K.M. and Martin, D.C. (1998), Management, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Bjoerkman, I. and Lu, Y. (1997), “Human resource management practices in foreign invested
enterprise in China: what has been earned?”, in Stewart, S. and Carver, A. (Eds), Advances
in Chinese Industrial Studies, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 155-72.
Carrell, M.R. and Dittrich, J.E. (1978), “Equity theory: the recent literature, methodological
considerations and need directions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 202-10.
Darling, K., Arm, J. and Gatlin, R. (1997), “How to effectively reward employees”, Industrial
Management, July/August, pp. 1-4.
Dessler, G. (1993), Winning Commitment – How to Build and Keep a Competitive Workforce,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Eskildsen, J.K., Kristensen, K. and Westlund, A.H. (2004), “Work motivation and job satisfaction
in the Nordic countries”, Employee Relations, Vol. 26, pp. 122-36.
Fitz-enz, J. (1997), “Fitz-enz it’s costly to lose good employees”, Workforce, Vol. 76 No. 8, pp. 50-1.
IJCOMA
18,4
360
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. (1969), Management of Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 53-62.
Herzberg, F., Maunser, B. and Synderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Hogeschool van Amsterdam (1994), “Hogeschool van Amsterdam success and failure of starting
women entrepreneurs in Holland”, research under the NOW initiative, Hogeschool
van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Jackson, T. and Bak, M. (1998), “Foreign corporations and Chinese workers: employee motivation
in the people’s republic of China”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, p. 11.
Katz, F. and Kahn, R. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kaufmann, R., Daries, B.J. and Schimdt, R. (1994), “Motivation, management and marketing – an
Eastern German case study”, European Business Review, Vol. 94, pp. 38-48.
Kovach, K.A. (1980), “Why motivational theories don’t work?”, SAM Advanced Management
Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 54-9.
Kovach, K.A. (1987), “What motivates employees? workers and supervisors give different
answers”, Business Horizons, Vol. 30, pp. 58-65.
Kovach, K.A. (1995), “Employee motivation: addressing a crucial factor in your organizational
performance”, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 22, pp. 93-107.
Kubo, I. and Saka, A. (2002), “An inquiry into the motivation of knowledge workers in the
Japanese financial industry”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, pp. 262-71.
Lee, J. (1997), “The motivation of women entrepreneurs in Singapore”, International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,p.3.
Leung, A.S.M. and Clegg, S.R. (2001), “The career motivation of female executives in the
Hong Kong public sector”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 12-20.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2001), “Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating
role of job satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 594-613.
Lord, R.L. (2002), “Traditional motivation theories and older engineers”, Engineering
Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 3-7.
Lu, Y., Child, J. and Yan, Y. (1997), “Adventuring in new terrain: managing international joint
ventures in China”, in Stewart, J. and Carver, A. (Eds), Advances in Chinese industrial
Studies, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 102-23.
McClelland, D.C. (1985), Human Motivation, Scott, Glenview, IL.
Mani, B.G. (2002), “Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: a case study”,
Public Personnel Management, Vol. 31, pp. 141-59.
Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York, NY.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents correlate, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 171-94.
Mehta, R., Dubinsky, A.J. and Anderson, R.F. (2003), “Leadership style, motivation and
performance in international marketing channels: an empirical investigation of the USA,
Finland, and Poland”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, pp. 50-85.
Milliken, W.F. (1996), “The Eastman way”, Quality Progress, Vol. 29, pp. 57-62.
Mitchell, T.R. (1982), “Motivation: new direction for theory, research, and practices”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 80-8.
Employee
motivation
361
Osteraker, M.C. (1999), “Measuring motivation in a learning organization”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 11, pp. 73-7.
Peterson, M.F. and Quintanilla, S.A.R. (2003), “Cultural socialization as a source of intrinsic work
motivation”, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 28, pp. 185-216.
Polzin, M.J. (1998), “Employee suggestion system: boosting productivity and profits”, Human
Technology Management, pp. 49-50.
Ramlall, S. (2004), “A review of employee motivation theories and their applications for employee
retention within organizations”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 5,
pp. 52-63.
Reis, D. and Pen
˜a, L. (2001), “Reengineering the motivation to work”, Management Decision,
Vol. 39, pp. 666-75.
Robbins, S. (1993), Organizational Behavior, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ross, D.L. (2002), “An explanatory study of work motivation among private and public sector
hospital chefs in Australia”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21, pp. 576-88.
Rowley, J. (1996), “Motivation and academic staff in higher education”, Quality Assurance in
Higher Education, Vol. 4, pp. 11-16.
Sarri, K. and Trihopoulou, A. (2005), “Female entrepreneurs personal characteristics and
motivation: a review of the Greek situations”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 20,
pp. 24-36.
Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1983), Motivation and Work Behavior, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Stewart, R. (1986), The Reality of Management, Pam books, Cox and Wyman, London.
Sullivan, J. (2000), “Recognizing the importance of incentives and rewarding employees”,
Nation’s Restaurants News, Vol. 26, p. 36.
Trunko, M.E. (1993), “Open to suggestions: Suggestion systems are changing to meet today’s
needs for employee involvement”, HR Magazine, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 85-9.
Wessler, R.L. (1984), “The psychology of motivation”, Marketing Communication, May, pp. 29-32.
Wiley, C. (1997), “What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 18, pp. 263-80.
Wright, B.E. (2001), “Public sector work motivation: a review of the current literature and a
revised conceptual model”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 4,
pp. 559-86.
Corresponding author
Rafikul Islam can be contacted at: rislam@iiu.edu.my
IJCOMA
18,4
362
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
