Content uploaded by Shen Kian Tan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shen Kian Tan on May 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
G.J.C.M.P.,Vol. 2(5):18-22 (September-October, 2013) ISSN: 2319 – 7285
18
HERZBERG’S TWO FACTORS THEORY ON WORK MOTIVATION: DOES ITS
WORK FOR TODAYS ENVIRONMENT?
Wan Fauziah Wan Yusoff*, Tan Shen Kian**, & Mohammad Talha Mohamed Idris***
*Faculty of Technology Management and Business, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
**Faculty of Technology Management and Business, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
***Faculty of Science, Technology and Human development, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Abstract
This paper review the conventional setting of Herzberg Two-Factors Theory and compare with current research
finding that implemented the theory. This paper discuss findings from various countries and industries have found
contrariwise with the theory, where Extrinsic Factors that should only turn up with job dissatisfactions or neutralize
feelings towards jobs have indeed effected respondents’ job satisfactions. The conclusion has presented a motion to
combine the two groups of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors as one set of determinants. The remodelling of Two-Factors
Theory should be used to determine employees’ job satisfaction factors in order to maximize their job performance.
Key Words – Intrinsic Factors, Extrinsic Factors, Employee Motivation.
Introduction
Motivation is one of the most important factors in affecting human behaviour and performance. The level of
motivation an individual or team exerted in their work task can affect all aspects of organizational performance. As
mentioned by Project Management Institute (2008), the overall success of the organizational project depends on the
project team’s commitment which is directly related to their level of motivation. As employees are the main resources for
organizations’ business activities, the issues of employees’ motivation will critically decide organizations’ success.
However, in understanding that human needs and preferences will not be the same among each other’s, one set of
motivation package designed for an individual or groups may not turn up a same effect on others. With statement
supported by Burke (2007), what makes individual do something is not necessary the same for another individual.
Moreover, Saraswathi (2011) also commented individuals are showing a discrepancy on their basic motivation drive. As
a result, refer to Bourgault et al. (2008), organizations should obtain a clear understanding in employees’ dissimilarities
in needs and preferences for motivation factors to boost up their performance towards overall organization goal.
In early ages of industrialization, unskilled agrarians’ workers are the major contributors in productivity. Direct
extrinsic incentives like higher pay or corporal punishments are the main thrust to increase employees’ productivity or
discourage poor performance (Wren, 1994). In a study conducted by Elton Mayo in year 1924 and 1932 that is later well
known as Hawthorne Study, employees’ requirements for higher performance have being discovered with more than just
incentives. The studies illuminated the extent to which workers were affected by external factors of work and how they
organised themselves into informal groups. In conclusion, Hawthorne Study has demonstrated the importance of
workers’ perceptions and complexity of behavioural variables, thus further imposed public the importance on human
relation approach and understanding of factors towards workplace motivation (Nickson, 1973, as cited in Saraswathi,
2011).
What is motivation?
The term motivation has being discussed and conceptualized by various researchers. Early years of definition
provided by Whiseand and Rush (1988) explained motivation as the willingness of an individual to do something and
conditioned by actions to satisfy needs. Later, Wregner and Miller (2003) described motivation as something that
energized individuals to take action and which is concerned with the choices the individual makes as part of his or her
goal-oriented behaviour. Following the recent definition contributed by Fuller et.al. (2008), motivation is a person’s
intensity, direction and persistence of efforts to attain a specific objective. From the statement provided, intensity as
further elaborated is how hard an individual tries to attain the specific objective while direction is the channel to intensity
towards the correct objective; whereas persistence refers to how long someone maintains an effort to attain the specific
objective. On the other hand, Motivation is defined by Saraswathi (2011) as the willingness to exert high levels of effort,
toward organizational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual need. Three key elements in the
definition are further provided as effort, organization goal, and need.
Definitions of motivation contributed by various researchers apparently have some similar meanings as drive,
energize and action. Researchers are agreeing on individuals’ motivations start with recognition of a desire that is not
present at the time the individual noticed, followed by mental desire to achieve something, thus following by physical
actions to obtain the desire. Variety of workplace motivation theories are classified as either process theory or context
theory (Campbell et. al., 1970; Lynne, 2012). Based on Content theory that emphasize on factors and needs that
encourage and inspire employees’ behaviour as well as performance, employees will gain their job satisfaction when
their work tasks give them sense of self-improvement. Motivation theories classified under Content theory undertake that
G.J.C.M.P.,Vol. 2(5):18-22 (September-October, 2013) ISSN: 2319 – 7285
19
all employees in the organization have the same set of needs, therefore allowing organizations to predict the
characteristics that should be present in the job (Lynne, 2012). Oppositely, process theories emphasized on employees’
behaviours that driven by their individual needs. Employees will gain their job satisfaction when their expectations and
values are met in their job. This theory included the process by which variables such as employees’ expectations, needs
and values, and comparisons interact with their job tasks to determine satisfaction. Variety of workplace motivation
theories that classified under process theory shares a same notion where employees’ diverse needs and the cognitive
process behind these diversities are given attentions (Lynne, 2012). In these theories, attentions are given on sources and
causes of employees’ behaviours, as well as the motives that affect the intensity and direction of those behaviours.
Herzberg’s two-factor theory: how does it work?
Frederick Herzberg’s well known Two-Factor Theory was designed in year 1959. Based on two hundred engineers
and accountant feedback collected in the USA regarding their personal feelings towards their working environments,
Herzberg defined two sets of factors in deciding employees working attitudes and level of performance, named
Motivation & Hygiene Factors (Robbins, 2009). Motivation Factors are Intrinsic Factors that will increase employees’
job satisfaction; while Hygiene Factors are Extrinsic Factors to prevent any employees’ dissatisfaction. Herzberg
furthered that full supply of Hygiene Factors will not necessary result in employees’ job satisfaction. In order to increase
employees’ performance or productivity, Motivation factors must be addressed.
Two-Factor Theory is closely related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs but it introduced more factors to measure how
individuals are motivated in the workplace. This theory argued that meeting the lower-level needs (extrinsic or hygiene
factors) of individuals would not motivate them to exert effort, but would only prevent them from being dissatisfied. In
order to motivate employees, higher-level needs (intrinsic or motivation factors) must be supplied. The implication for
organizations to use this theory is that meeting employees’ extrinsic or hygiene factors will only prevent employees from
becoming actively dissatisfied but will not motivate them to contribute additional effort toward better performance. To
motivate employees, organizations should focus on supplying intrinsic or motivation factors (Robbins, 2009).
According to the setting of theory, Extrinsic Factors are less to contribute to employees’ motivation need. The
presences of these factors were just to prevent any dissatisfaction to arise in their workplaces. Extrinsic Factors are also
well known as job context factors; are extrinsic satisfactions granted by other people for employees (Robbins, 2009).
These factors serve as guidance for employers in creating a favourable working environment where employees feel
comfortable working inside. When all these external factors were achieved, employees will be free from unpleasant
external working conditions that will banish their feelings of dissatisfactions, but remains themselves neutral in neither
satisfied nor motivated; however, when employers fail to supply employees’ Extrinsic Factors needs, employees’ job
dissatisfaction will arise.
Intrinsic Factors are the actually factors that contribute to employees’ level of job satisfactions. It has widely being
known as job content factors which aim to provide employees meaningful works that able to intrinsically satisfy
themselves by their works outcomes, responsibilities delegated experience learned, and achievements harvested
(Robbins, 2009). Intrinsic Factors are very effective in creating and maintaining more durable positive effects on
employees’ performance towards their jobs as these factors are human basic needs for psychological growth. Intrinsic
Factors will propel employees to insert additional interest into their job. When employees are well satisfied by
motivational needs, their productivity and efficiency will improved.
This theory further proposed the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors are interdependence to each other. Presence of
Extrinsic Factors will only eliminate employees’ work dissatisfaction; however, it will not provide job satisfaction. On
the other hand, sufficient supply in Intrinsic Factor will cultivate employees’ inner growth and development that will lead
to a higher productivity and performance; however, absent of this factor will only neutralize their feeling neither satisfy
nor dissatisfy on their jobs. Extrinsic Factors only permit employees willingness to work while Intrinsic Factors will
decide their quality of work. These two groups of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Factors are not necessary opposite with each
other, as opposite of satisfaction are not dissatisfaction, but rather no satisfaction. Similarly, opposite of dissatisfaction
are not satisfaction, but no dissatisfaction (Robbins, 2009). For instance, a study by Wan Fauziah and Tan (2013) among
124 employees from electronic companies in Malaysia revealed the employees have some differences in their intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation factors. Hence, organizations should modulate their operations and procedures to satisfy both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors of their employees.
Criticism on extrinsic factors towards job satisfactions
The groundwork of Two-Factors Theory is built on the factors for employees’ job satisfactions. According to
Spector (1997), Job satisfaction is defined as "the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction)
their jobs". It has been recognized to have its positive impact on organizational performance and employees’
commitments (Levy, 2003); on the contrary, contrariwise with absenteeism and turnover intentions (Yousef, 2000).
Following the definitions provided, it may assumes that if individuals place high preferences on Extrinsic Factors such as
Working Environment or Supervision, then the Extrinsic Factors will have positive effects towards their job satisfactions,
rather than only prevent their dissatisfactions and keep them in a neutral feelings.
In order to support such assumption, several research finding have being introduced. A finding that found
contradicted with Herzberg’s finding is carried out by Schroer (2008). The researcher used the Two-Factor Theory to
study the impact of demographical factors on job satisfaction. Findings arrived from the study has concluded that overall
job satisfaction was related to age and educational level, and that levels of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation factors were
vary among occupational groups of people. Besides, another case study that covered two Universities in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia to understand their job satisfaction factors was also found in support to the idea of criticism. Ten major factors
corresponding to job satisfaction using Herzberg Two Factor theory were utilized to determine how these selected factors
G.J.C.M.P.,Vol. 2(5):18-22 (September-October, 2013) ISSN: 2319 – 7285
20
are related to job satisfaction of Malaysia faculty members (Edward & Teoh, 2009). Interestingly, present of Extrinsic
Motivation Factors have positively contributed to respondents’ job satisfactions; while absent of Intrinsic Motivation
Factors don’t really neutralized their feeling, but have de-motivated them. In China, a study conducted by Fang Yang
(2011) has found that all Extrinsic Motivation Factors can motivate employees in China to work hard. The finding has
shown a reverse effect where Extrinsic Motivation Factors have overridden Intrinsic Motivation Factors to be the first
and second highest motivation factor for workers in China. Lastly, a recent empirical research from Wan Fauziah and
Tan (2013) has found that the factor of generations plays an important role in determining employees’ favourability in
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation factors. Interestingly, younger generation of workers were motivated by Extrinsic
Motivation factors and demotivated by Intrinsic Motivation factors to perform Citizenship Performance in their
workplace. Older generation of worker were found vice versa, where their Citizenship Performance was motivated by
Intrinsic Motivation factors and demotivated by Extrinsic Motivation factors.
In a study presented by Stringer et. al. (2011) examines the implications of a pay-for-performance system on
Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation factors and job satisfaction of front-line employees at a retailer in Australasia. They
concluded pay and benefits have strongest association with job satisfactions. In Malaysian context, a research carried out
by Ibrahim and Boerhaneoddin (2010) also suggested factor of compensations has a significant effect on job
satisfactions. Another research from Islam and Hj. Ismail (2008) which widely survey on more than 500 workers
scattered over 96 various Malaysian organizations have concluded their results where factor of pay was found effective
in motivating their respondents. Moreover, Asri et. al. (2007) has studied employees’ organisational commitment in
SMEs as well as the relationship between commitment and job satisfaction in the manufacturing sector. Based on a case
study of 236 employees in Small and Medium Enterprises in Kuala Terengganu, they found employees’ organizational
commitments have a significant correlation with their perception of pay.
In a research of Ponnu and Chuah in 2010 involved 172 respondents from various job levels and industrial
backgrounds, they presented the strong significant relationship between organizational justice and organizational
commitments. Their respondents have shown a shared behavior where their perceptions towards organizational
procedural and distributive justice will positively affect their organizational commitments. Moreover, the results also
revealed that procedural justice are more important than distributive justice in influencing employees’ organizational
commitments. Another research contributed by Edward and Teoh (2009) that focuses on faculty members from two
Malaysia universities has also found a significant positive relationship between company policy and administration and
job satisfactions.
The subject of the relations between coworkers' relationship and job satisfaction, a research carried out in sixty
international hotels by Lin and Lin (2011) has concluded a positive relationship between co-worker and job
satisfactions. Besides, according to Ducharme and Martin (2000) that conducted a large-scale investigation on the
problems relating to job satisfaction issues targeted on the employees of international service providers, their studies
found that the factors of work group interactions and co-workers' support have significant positive correlation to job
satisfaction. Another local research result arrived from Asri et. al. (2007) also supported a significant positive correlation
between job satisfaction and co-worker relationship. From their research on employees in Small and Medium Enterprises
in Kuala Terengganu, their respondents have been proven by Hierarchical Regression analysis that their organizational
commitments were significantly influenced by factor of co-worker.
To define the relationship between supervisory factors and job satisfactions, Edwards and Rothbard (1999)
provided their statements in supporting strong social relations found within the work environment will enhance
employees’ job satisfaction and productivity. Another research finding contributed by Lin and Lin (2011) on supervisory
factors has revealed a positive relationship between leader-member interactions and job satisfactions. The respondents
from the research have revealed strong satisfactions on their jobs when they experienced positive interactions with their
supervisors. In Malaysia context, Asri et. al, (2007) have concluded their research results as factor of supervisions have
significantly influenced job satisfactions and organizational commitments. The above studies have successfully
supported earlier statements that the better the coordinative relationship in terms of trust, confidence, and respect
between leaders and followers, the higher rate of employees’ job satisfactions arriving from supervisory factors will be
achieved (Weng, Lai, Li, 2010). As summary, the hygiene factor of Supervision is concluded with a positive relationship
with job satisfactions.
The factor of job security towards employees’ job satisfactions has been tested by Danish and Usman (2010). With
220 respondents from Pakistan participated in their research, they have confirmed a positive relationship between factor
of job security and employees’ job satisfactions. Another Malaysian research carried out by Rafikul and Ahmad (2008)
also concluded the factor of job security has positive effect in motivating their respondents. All of the findings above has
found similar with research results generated by Saraswathi (2011) in India, where Job security also concluded with
significant effect on non-IT employees’ motivation factors.
A research in Malaysia retail sectors contributed by Tan and Amna (2011) have concluded the factor of working
condition as the highest significant for job satisfaction. From a total of 152 sales personnel from women’s clothing stores
in shopping mall of Bandar Sunway, Regression analysis has demonstrated that the respondents valued their working
conditions to be the most significant for their job satisfactions. On the other hand, a research contributed by Rafikul and
Ahmad (2008) also concluded a positive relationship between good working condition and motivation. Compare to their
respondents who hold professionals, bachelor and master degree, PhD and certificate holders have raked the factor of
working condition as the most important among other motivation and hygiene factors. Lastly, a study conducted by
Jaafar et. al. (2006) has justified the importance of hygiene factors among Malaysia employees’ job satisfactions.
Respondents from the research have answered the factor of working condition has influencing power in their satisfactions
towards their organizations.
G.J.C.M.P.,Vol. 2(5):18-22 (September-October, 2013) ISSN: 2319 – 7285
21
According to Casper and Harris (2008), the balance between employees working hours and personal time will
improve employees’ organizational commitments and reduce turnover intentions. From a research of Saraswathi (2011),
the factor of Personal Life has found to be the most important in motivating non-IT employees in India. The results
although found incompatible with Herzberg’ Two-Factors theory where Hygiene factor only play as mediator to prevent
dissatisfaction, however, the researcher has explained that this results may be due to difference in the need of employees,
work contexts and types of organizations.
Since most of results arrived has shown the existence of Extrinsic factors towards employees’ motivation, it is
recommended that Herzberg Two-Factor theory should be used as single group of determinant for employees job
satisfactions. When applied to work motivation, the theory can be explained as follow. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
factors will go thru employees’ preferences for motivation factors in order to turn up their work motivation. Thus, this
model can be visualised as follow:
Figure 1: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Model of Work Performance
Conclusion
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory has widely used on variety of motivational researches across different industries and
generations. The extra point of Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory because it provides an integration of individuals’ intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation factors that is able to ideally cover other motivation theories. Motivation and hygiene factors
introduced by Herzberg have found similarities among other motivation theories under content theories as each theory
carries various employees’ need for motivation in similar terms (Borkowski, 2011). In detail, Responsibilities,
Achievements, Growth, Promotion, Recognition and Work Itself categorised under Herzberg’s motivation factors have
found similar with Maslow’s Self Actualization and Self Esteem, and Alderfer’s Growth need, as well as McClelland’s
Need of Achievements. Relationship with Peers. Personal Life, Supervision categorised under Herzberg’s hygiene factors
consistent with Maslow’s Belongingness, Alderfer’s Relatedness need, and McClelland’s need of Affiliation. Factor of
Status under hygiene factors is similar with Need for Power under McClelland’s Theory of Need. Lastly. Pay and
Benefit, Work Condition, Job Security and Company Policy and Administration are also found consistent with Maslow’s
Safety and Physiological Need and Alderfer’s Existence need. As results, compare to the other Motivational Theories,
Two-Factor Theory provides more comprehensive sets of factors that cover basic individual internal and external needs
to exert their additional efforts into jobs.
However, the implementation of Two-Factor theory has been found less practical in for today’s employees’
motivation study. As discussed earlier, most of the research findings across variety of countries and industries have
concluded that Extrinsic Factors have impacted their respondents’ job satisfactions. The opposition of findings against
theory where Extrinsic Factors should either turn up with job dissatisfactions or neutral feeling towards jobs have clearly
call up an urge to revise and update the setting of theory. As results, it is recommended that elements categorised under
Extrinsic Factors should be accepted to have direct impact on employees’ job satisfactions. The conventional setting of
Two-Factors Theory may not only localised for the used for determining respondents’ satisfactions dissatisfactions
issues; however, it can be further broaden the scope of usage by combining the two groups of Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Factors as a group of determinant and thus study its effects towards target respondents.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express our gratitude to all those who gave us the possibility to complete this study
especially to Research Management Centre, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia for providing research grant for this
study.
Reference
Asri A., Munir S., Zikri M., Hassan N. K., Norizan Md. N. & Junaimah J., (2007). Employee Organizational Commitment in Smes:
Evidence From The Manufacturing Sector In Malaysia, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 3 (2), pp. 12-26.
Bourgault M, Drouin N, & Hamel É. (2008). Decision Making within Distributed Project Teams: An exploration of formalization and
autonomy as determinants of success. Proj. Manage. J., 39: S97-S110.
Burke R (2007). Project Management Leadership. CapeTown: Burke.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., & Weick, K.E. (1970). Managerial Behaviour, Performance, and Effectiveness. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Casper, W. J. & Harris, C. M. (2008) Work-Life Benefits and Organizational Attachment: Self-Interest Utility and Signaling Theory
Models. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 72, pp. 95–109.
C. H. Ponnu & C.C. Chuah (2010). Organizational Commitment, Organizational Justice and Employee Turnover in Malaysia. African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4(13), pp. 2676-2692.
Danish, Q. D., & Usman, A. (2010). Impact of Reward and Recognition on Job Satisfaction and Motivation: An empirical Study from
Pakistan. International Journal of Business & Management, Vol. 5 (2), pp. 159-167.
Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation
Factors
Employees’
Preferences
Work Motivation
G.J.C.M.P.,Vol. 2(5):18-22 (September-October, 2013) ISSN: 2319 – 7285
22
Ducharme, Lori J. & Jack K. Martin (2000). Unrewarding Work, Coworker Support, and Job Satisfaction, Work and Occupations,
Vol. 27 (2), pp. 223-243.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and Family Stress and Well-Being: An Examination of Person-Environment Fit in the
Work and Family Domains, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 77 (2), pp. 85-129.
Edward S.K.W & Dr. Teoh N.H. (2009) Case Study of Factors Influencing Jobs Satisfaction in Two Malaysian Universities”,
International Business Research, Vol. 2, No. 2.
Fang Yang (2011). Work, Motivation and Personal Characteristics: An In-Depth Study of Six Organizations in Ningbo”, Chinese
Management Studies, Vol. 5 (3), pp. 272-297
Fuller MA, Valacich JS, & George JF (2008). Information Systems Project Management: A Process and Team Approach. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall
Ida Irdawaty Ibrahim & Ali Boerhaneoddin (2010). Is Job Satisfaction Mediating the Relationship Between Compensation Structure
and Organizational Commitment? A Study in the Malaysian Power Utility, Journal of Global Business and Economics, Vol. 1. No. 1
Levy, P.L. (2003). Industrial/organisational psychology: Understanding the workplace.Boston: Houghton Miflin Company.
Mastura Jaafar, T Ramayah & Zainurin Zainal (2006). Work Satisfaction and Work Performance: How Project Managers in Malaysia
Perceive it?. Proc. Of the 2nd Biennial Conference of the Academy of World Business, Marketing and Management Development, Pole
Universitare, Paris.
Mohani Abdul, Hashanah Ismail & Noor Ismail Hj. Jaafar. (2010). Job Satisfaction Among Executives: Case of Japanese Electrical
and Electronic Manufacturing Companies, Malaysia. The Journal of Global Business Management, Vol. 6(2), pp. 165-173
More, H. W., Wegner, F. W. & Miller, L. S. (2003). Effective Police Supervision, Cincinnati, Anderson Publishing Co.
Nancy Borkowski, (2011). Organizational Behavior in Health Care (2nd ed.) United Kingdom, Jones and Bartlett Publisher
International.
Nickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne Experiments. Pp. 298-302 in C. Heyel (ed.), The encyclopedia of management, 2nd ed. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Project Management Institute (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide).Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania
Rafikul Islam & Ahmad Zaki Hj. Ismail (2008). Employee Motivation: A Malaysian Perspective, International Journal of Commerce
and Management, Vol. 18 (4), pp. 344-362
She-Cheng Lin & Jennifer Shu-Jen Lin (2011). Impacts of Coworkers' Relationships on Organizational Commitment- and Intervening
Effects of Job Satisfaction. African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(8), pp. 3396-3409
Spector P. (1997). Job Satisfaction, Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.
S. Saraswathi (2011): A Study on Factors that Motivate IT and Non-IT Sector Employees: A Comparison. International Journal of
Research in Computer Application and Management, Vol. 1 (2), pp. 72-77
Stephen P. Robbins (2009). Organizational Behaviour: International Version, 13/E. Pearson Higher Education
Tan Teck Hong & Amna Waheed (2011): Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory and Job Satisfaction in the Malaysia Retail Sector:
The Mediating Effect of Love of Money, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16 (1), pp. 73–94
Wan Fauziah W. Y. & Tan S.K.,(2013). Generation Differences in Work Motivation: From Developing Country Perspective.
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(4), pp 97-103.
Weng LC, Lai YZ, & Li YJ (2010). Too Much of A Good Thing: The Curvilinear Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange
and Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior. J. Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 29-52.
William J. Schroer (2008). Generations X, Y, Z and the Others, The Journal of the Household Goods Forwarders Association of
America, Inc, Vol. XL, pp. 9-11.
Whatmore, Lynne (2012). Raising Performance through Motivation Part One: Content Theories. Michael Heath Consulting.
Whiseand, P. & Rush, G. (1988). Supervising Police Personnel: Back to Basics, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Wren, D. (1994). The Evolution of Management Thought, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organisational Commitment: A Mediator of the Relationship Behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in
a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 Vol. (1), pp. 6-24
