Chapter 2 - Literature Review + Chapter 4
Chapter 2 - Literature Review + Chapter 4
Chapter 2 - Literature Review + Chapter 4
Content theories
2.1.2.1 Herzberg’s Two-factor theory
Herzberg (1959) developed a well-known motivation theory, namely the Two-Factor Theory;
his theory is based on motivators and hygiene factors. The factors could be either motivators
or hygiene factors, but cannot be both at the same time. Herzberg built his research on
motivation by asking the labour force to give their opinion on two statements (Worrell, 2004).
After interpreting the statements, along with his co-workers, Herzberg came forth with the
two factor theory which is also known as the motivator-hygiene theory. They found that the
respondents were dissatisfied with different factors as causes of work dissatisfaction
subsequently called “dissatisfiers” or “hygiene factors” compared to as they were with the
factors which provide them with sufficient satisfaction, subsequently called “satisfiers” or
“motivator factors” (Schermerhorn et al., 1994).Below is figure which contains examples of
hygiene factors and motivator factors:
Figure Hygiene factors and Motivator factors
The motivator factors are intrinsic factors which motivate employees to use their full
capability in order to attain their greatest level of achievement for the job they do (Roberts,
2005). The actualisation of higher level necessity such as achievement, recognition and
opportunity for growth is linked with the motivator factors (Worrell, 2004). Hygiene factors,
also known as, extrinsic variants relate to the environment and help mainly to prevent job
dissatisfaction.
The true motivators are determinants that cause job satisfaction and are directly linked to
work content and factors leading to dissatisfaction are hygiene or maintenance factors
(Stone, 2005). The author further affirm that Herzberg concluded that the sole motivators
existing in a job can bring workers’ satisfaction and performance and that hygiene factors do
not motivate individuals however, lack of these factors within a job can lead to job
dissatisfaction.
Stone (2005) provides that, for an individual to satisfy their higher level of needs, they must
firstly be able to satisfy their basic needs. Therefore, in order to achieve the second level need,
all individuals must be able to satisfy their physiological needs which would require them to
have a job and receive the basic salary.
According to Ott, Parkes and Simpson (2008) Maslow’s study of needs can be summarised as
follows:
All individuals have needs that is key to motivating them to work harder in order to
move to the top level of the hierarchy, i.e. the self-actualisation needs.
When lower level needs are satisfied, they no longer drive performance.
Needs which have already been satisfied are not motivators.
Higher level needs become the motivating factors when the lower level needs of
workers are satisfied.
Maslow’s theory forewarns managers of the potential threat that may arise if employees’
needs are left unsatisfied which may cause their attitudes and performance at work to fall
significantly decreasing their motivation level. The organisation should also consider the fact
that once a need has been satisfied, it no longer appears as an effective drive of employee
behaviour (Stone, 2005).
Theory X Theory Y
1. People do not like work and try to avoid 1. People do not naturally dislike work: work
it. is a natural part of their lives.
2. People do not like work, so managers 2. People are internally motivated to reach
have to control, direct, direct, coerce and objectives to which they are motivated.
threaten employees to get them to work
towards organisational goals.
3. People prefer to be directed, to avoid 3. People seek both responsibility and
responsibility and want security: they have accept responsibility under favourable
little ambition. conditions.
Equity theory is divided into three important features concerned to the conception of
motivation: inputs, outcomes and referents. As illustrated in Figure 3.4, workers use
resources to an allocated task which are also referred to as inputs (e.g. experience,
professionalism, and qualifications) while work-related benefits (e.g. salary, fringe benefits,
reputation, achievement and advancement, work safety) are known as the end-result. The
inputs and outputs of an individual are contrasted with those of their colleagues within the
organisation (Georges & Jones, 2005). If input or outcome ratios are kept at equal level, job
satisfaction will arise, as employees are more motivated to maintain the ratios at the same
extent; as a result they increase their resources therefore leading to a rise in production. If
inequitable ratios or under-rewards are deduced, unfairness and job dissatisfaction will arise
among the employees (Adams, 1963).
Inequity leads to tension, which is unappealing, hence employees are likely to reduce this
inequity by either augmenting or diminishing their inputs or outputs compared with the other
individuals. Again, this theory has been criticised. Equity theory is based only with workers
who are satisfied with their salary but does not include several facet of work (Gruneberg,
1979). Vroom (1969) states that it is complex and inappropriate to test, while Mowday (1987)
is uncertain whether employees with higher salaries will be unhappy. Workers’
interpretations about equity and inequity may not be factual and also disagree immensely as
to how responsive they are to equity ratios and the balance of favouritism (Riggio, 1990).
Donovan (2002) considers a transparency concerning the differences individuals create, an
equity theory does not provide an explanation on how referents are selected. Accordingly, no
practical examination of this process has yet been conducted. Lastly, the theory impractically
considers that only one referent is applied to assess their inputs or outcomes. However,
researchers including Muchinsky (2000) and Jost & Kay (2010), have a favourable view on
equity theory. Bolino and Turnley (2008) declare that it has gained consequential attention,
mainly from organisational scholars. Furthermore, research by McKenna (2000) and Sweeney
(1990) have shown that the equity theory has assisted to better understand the concept of
job satisfaction and motivation.
The individual’s own predictions of achievement, gains and targeted satisfaction results; not
only the outcomes of the aims themselves; will stimulate his or her level of effort (Robbins,
2003). In a simple way, the expectancy theory assumes that employees are motivated by
predicting how much they desire for something, what amount of it they expect they will get,
how probable it is that their actions will lead them to achieve it and how much their co-
workers have received in related situations (Ott et al.,2008).
Choice A Choice B
High Acceptable
Performance Performance
Transfer to Stay In
Sydney Melbourne
As such, Luthan (1998, as cited in Ajeni and Popoola, 2007) postulated three fundamental
sides of job satisfaction.
The second perspective explains that job satisfaction often depends on how well
targets have been met or expectations surpassed. For instance, positive attitude
towards the job is more likely to occur when employees feel fairly and equitably
rewarded than a situation where employees feel they are being rewarded less for their
determined efforts compared to others employees that hardly bother to even put in
effort.
The last dimension to job satisfaction, explained by Lauthan, are the numerous linked
attitudes of job satisfaction which are the most crucial features of a job that people
respond to effectively. These crucial features, according to Luthans, are the work
itself, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and co-workers- and all these affect
job satisfaction, as explained by Robbins, Odendaal and Roodt (2003, as cited in
Adams, 2007).
A momentous model that simplified the purview of the Dispositional Theory was the Core Self
evaluations Model which was suggested by Timothy A. Judge in 1998. Judge asserted that
there are four Core Self-evaluations that resolve one’s propensity towards job satisfaction,
namely self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism. This model asserts
that higher position of self-esteem (the value one establishes on his/her self) and general self-
efficacy (the belief in one’s own capability) prompt to higher work satisfaction. Possessing an
internal locus of control (believing one has control over her/his own life, in contrast to outside
forces gaining control) bring to higher job satisfaction. Lastly, lower levels of neuroticism
prompt to higher job satisfaction.
Advancement
13,14, External 32,33
15 Regulation
Compensation 34
16,17, Amotivation
18
Institution 35,36
Policies
Recognition
37,38
This section represents the conceptual framework derived from this current research. The
diagram above illustrates UDM teaching staffs’ work motivation and job satisfaction which
comprises of four dimensions, influenced by various determinants and variables. These
elements were found from the questionnaire, whereby many have been identified from the
literature and adopted to the current study.
The three facets of the framework include motivation factors, satisfaction factors and the
questions related to these determinants. The second dimension comprises six factors:
intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation,
external regulation and amotivation. Job satisfaction includes eight determinants, for
example, compensation which is linked to the salary of employees in relation to the amount
of work being done within the organization. The first and last dimension relate to questions
that identify themselves directly with their corresponding determinants. The arrows in Figure
show demographically important interconnections between work motivation and job
satisfaction, between work motivation and its determinants, between job satisfaction and its
determinants, between work motivation and its related questions and between job
satisfaction and its equivalent questions. The framework analyses the personality of the
teaching staffs in UDM and its education system as well.
Chapter 4: Data Analysis
Once the data is processed and completed, a statistical analysis is performed inorder to infer
some properties of the population from the results of the sample. Thus the purpose of
statistics is to summarise and answer questions about the behavioural variability that was
obtained in the research. Statistical analyses involve both descriptive and inferential statistics.
The level of statistical significance for null hypothesis testing was set at 5% level, with all
statistical test results being computed at the two-tailed level of significance in accordance
with the non-directional hypotheses presented.
From figure 4.1.1, it can be observed that the majority shaded area in green was male
participants and the yellow shaded area comprises of the number of female participants.
Frequency = 18.This implies that we have 18 participants. Out of these 18 participants, the
age of 2 participants lies between 41-45 and 36-40, the age of the 6 participants range
between 46-50 and the age of majority of participants is above 50.
The above figure illustrates the different ages of the sample of 18 participants. 11%
respondents have an age between 41-45 and 36-40, 33% participants’ age lie between 46-50
and 44% respondents have an age above 50.
The frequency column gives an indication about how many participants are employed on
their job depending on the number of years given as option. Also, the percentage of
employees employed based on the number of years can be calculated. For example, it can
be observed that 2 participants are employed on their job for less than 1 year.
A percentage can be calculated from this information whereby 2/18 *100 gives 11% which
means that 11% of participants has an age of less than 1 year.
The bar chart shows that 2 participants have an age less than 1 year, 4 have an age between
1-3 years, 1 has an age between 4-6 and 7-9 years, 3 have an age between 10-14 years and
7 respondents have an age of 15 years or more.
Out of a sample size of 18 participants, the majority are the one who has a Master degree
Doctor of Philosophy, whereby n=16. Only 1 participant has a Degree with education
preparation and a Degree without education preparation.
It can be observed that the 17 participants are motivated by both financial and non-financial
incentives and 1 participant is motivated by non-financial incentives. In other way, it can be
said that the sample comprised of 6% of participants who based their motivation level only
on non-financial incentives and the rest 94% relied on both types of incentives when it comes
to what motivates them more.
4.1.6 Management is really interested in motivating the employees?
In a sample size of 18 respondents, the majority of participants agree that the management
at UDM is really interested in motivating the employees. 3 participants are neutral about this
which means that they neither agree nor disagree with this statement and only 1 respondent
disagree that the management is not really interested in motivating the employees.
The above information can be represented in a bar chart which reflects the statistics that has
been found according to whether or not the management is really interested in motivating
the employees, thereby classified under 3 categories: Agree, Neutral and Disagree.
4.2 Inferential Statistics
(a) Hypotheses:
H0: Motivation level follows a normal distribution.
H1: Motivation level does not follow a normal distribution.
(d) Conclusion:
We have to see whether the significance value is greater or less than 5%. If computed value
is more than 5%, we should accept H0. However, if the p-value is less than 5%, we should
reject H0.
Since significance value is greater than 0.05, we have to accept H0 and conclude that the
variable does follow a normal distribution.
4.2.1.2 Calculation of Mean
We have to calculate the mean as our data is normally distributed.
N = 18. In our survey there was 18 participants and all 18 participants have answered the
questions.
Missing = 0. There was no participants who had left any questions unanswered.
Minimum = 2.21. The value is close to 2, which means that the level of motivation among
academic staffs corresponds moderately with their job.
Mean = 2.71. When the value is rounded off, it can be said that it is close to 3. Since it is nearer
to 3, it means that in terms of motivation level, the academic staffs’ level of motivation
corresponds exactly, that is it can be inferred to as they are motivated to a high extent by
their work.
4.2.2 Research Objective 2: To determine the level of job satisfaction among teaching staffs
in UDM.
4.2.2.1 Normality test: Parametric Test
(a) Hypotheses:
H0: Satisfaction level follows a normal distribution.
H1: Satisfaction level does not follow a normal distribution.
(b) Test: Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(d) Conclusion:
We have to see whether the significance value is greater or less than 5%. If computed value
is more than 5%, we should accept H0. However, if the p-value is less than 5%, we should
reject H0.
Since significance value is greater than 0.05, we have to accept H0 and conclude that the
variable does follow a normal distribution.
N = 18. In our survey there was 18 participants and all 18 participants have answered the
questions.
Missing = 0. There was no participants who had left any questions unanswered.
Minimum = 3.05. The value is close to 3, which means that the academic staffs are very
satisfied with their job at UDM.
Mean = 3.50. When the value is rounded off, it can be said that it is close to 3. Since it is nearer
to 3, it means that in relation to employees’ satisfaction, the academic staffs are very satisfied
with their job.
4.2.3 Research Objective 3: To determine whether there is a relationship between
teaching staffs’ motivation and job satisfaction level.
Comment
(a) Hypothesis
H0: There is no relationship between teaching staffs’ motivation and satisfaction level.
H1: There is a relationship between teaching staffs’ motivation and satisfaction level.
(b) Direction:
There is a positive relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction level
experienced by the academic staffs at UDM, from doing their job.
(c) Magnitude:
There is a weak relationship between motivation and satisfaction level that the academic
staffs experience at UDM.
(d) Significance:
There is a non-significant relationship between the work motivation and job satisfaction
level among the staffs at UDM.
(e) Overall:
There is a positive, weak and non-significant relationship between work motivation and job
satisfaction level at UDM.
4.3.2.2 Regression Analysis
Perform a regression analysis with the motivation and satisfaction index
(a) Regression Hypothesis
H0: The level of work motivation does not have a statistically significant impact on job
satisfaction.
H1: The level of work motivation does have a statistically significant impact on job
satisfaction.
(b) R is the correlation and it measures how two variables move in relation to each other.
R-value = 0.36. It means that 36% of academic staffs’ satisfaction on this job are explained
by the motivation level at UDM.
(c) R square or the coefficient of determination is the proportion on variability in Y that is
explained by the independent variable, which is the X variable.
This is the proportion of variance in the dependent variable (the job satisfaction level on this
job) which can be explained by the independent variable (the motivation level). This is an
overall measure of the strength of association and does not reflect the extent to which any
particular independent variable is associated with the dependent variable.
R Square = 0.13. It means that 13% of satisfaction on this job are explained by the
independent variable, that is the motivation level of the staffs at UDM.
(d) Adjusted R Square = 0.07. This means that 7% of staffs’ satisfaction are explained by the
motivation level from this job.
(e) Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.15. It implies that 15% of employees’ satisfaction are
explained by other variables than the independent variable, that is, the work motivation
level.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that this is not a good model because the majority of the staffs’
satisfaction are not explained by this model but rather defined by other variables.
Coefficient
ANOVA