University of Nigeria Chika_91_6627.pdf · one of the major theories of motivation, namely Herzberg's two-factor theory. Herzberg's theory was chosen for study among other theories

University of Nigeria Research Publications

ONONIWU, Chika

Aut

hor

PG/MBA/88/6627

Title

Applicability of Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory in the

Nigerian Work Situation: A Survey of Workers in the African Continental Bank (ACB) Plc Lagos

Facu

lty

Business Administration

Dep

artm

ent

Management

Dat

e

July, 1991

Sign

atur

e

A P P L I C A H I I , J T Y OF HEHZBKHG * S TWO-FACTOR 'I'HKOIIY I N T H E

N I G E R I A N 'dC~!?lC S I T U A T I O N : A SURVEY O F WORKERS I N T H E

A F R I C A N C O N T I N K N T A L BANK (ACB) LTD, LAGOS I

ONONIWU, C H I K A REG, NO, ~ ( ; / ~ ~ ~ / 8 8 / 6 6 2 7

A D I S S E H T A ' I ' I O N P R E S E N T E D T O TIIT: DEPAHTMISNT

OF MANMXICMENT , U N I V E R S I T Y O F N I G E R I A , ENUGU

CAMI'U!; I N 1 'AHTIAL h'UL,F'II,MENT O F T H E

KE(JUIIIICMI~:NTS FOR T H E AWARD O F MASTEX O F

B U S I N E S S AIIMIN I S T R A T I O N I N MANAGEMENT,

J U L Y , 1991

A P P L I C A B I L I T Y OF HERZREHG 'S TWO-FACTOR

T H E O R Y I N THE NIGERIAN WORK SITUATION:

A SURVEY OF WORKERS I N THE A F H l C A N

CONTINENTAL BANK LIMITED, LAGOS,

CERT IFICAT I O N

Ononiwu, Chika, a P o s t g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t i n t h e

Department o f Management and w i t h t h e R e g i s t r a t i o n

No. ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ / 8 8 / 6 6 2 7 h a s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y comple ted t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r c o u r s e and r e s e a r c h work f o r t h e

d e g r e e o f Master of Bus iness A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (MBA) i n

Management.

The work embodied i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n r e p o r t

i s o r i g i n a l and h a s n o t Seen s u b m i t t e d i n p a r t o r

f u l l f o r a n y o t h e r diploma o r d e g r e e o f t h i s o r any

o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y .

; C

Head o f Department, M r . J . A , Ezeh

S u p e r v i s o r ,

DEDICATION

T h i s s t u d y is d e d i c a t e d t o a l l who i n one

way o r t h e o t h e r made my e d u c a t i o n a l dream a r e a l i t y ,

and t o a l l who a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e management .

of human r e sou rce s .

I pledge my indebtedness t o a number of people

f o r t h e va r ious c o n t r i b u t i o n s they made towards

making t h i s work a r e a l i t y .

I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l t o my ex-project

supe rv i so r , l a t e D r . E. Onyenadum, f o r h i s guidance,

unders tanding and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m s which

helped immensely i n t h e q u a l i t y of t h i s work. I am

a l s o h igh ly indebted t o my p r e s e n t p r o j e c t supe rv i so r ,

M r . J. A. Ezeh f o r h i s f a t h e r l y r o l e which saw t h i s

work t o a conclusive end.

My g r a t i t u d e goes a l s o t o t h e management and

s t a f f of Afr ican Cont inenta l Bank Ltd, Lagos, f o r

t h e co-operat ion they gave me when I was c o l l e c t i n g

t h e d a t a used f o r t h i s study.

ABSTRACT

The a v a i l a b i l i t y of p rope r ly motivated employees

i s i n e ~ i t a ~ l e f o r t h e s u c c e s s f u l ope ra t i on of any

o r g a n i z a t i o n , This i s because human beings a r e t h e

l i v e w i r e of a n o rgan iza t i on and wi thout them, it is

o f t e n d i f f i c u l t , i f n o t impossible , t o ach ieve organiza-

t i o n a l g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s .

Tn r ecogn i t i on of t h e importance of employee

mot iva t ion , d i f f e r e n t t h e o r i e s a s t o what mot iva tes a

worker have been propounded. These t h e o r i e s were

developed mainly i n Europe and America, whose s o c i a l ,

economic and c u l t u r a l v a l u e s vary from ours , One o f

such t h e o r i e s is Herzbergfs Two-factor model whose

a p p l i c a S i l i t y t o Niger ian work environment i s being

t e s t e d , u s ing The Afr ican Con t inen t a l Bank (ACR) a s a

ca se s tudy . Consequently, t h e o b j e c t i v e of t h e s tudy

among o t h e r s i s t h e a scer ta fnment of workers p r e f e r e n c e s

f o r He rzbe rg t s mot iva tors o r hyeiene f a c t o r s , i n o r d e r

t o put i n s u p e r i o r performance,

Dsta used f o r t h e s tudy was ob t a ined through t h e

q u e s t i o n n a i r e ins t rument and o r a l in terview.

In t h e s tudy , f i v e hypo thes i s were formulated and

t e s t e d , and t h e fo l lowing f i n d i n g s were made:

1. The s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB Ltd, would p r e f e r

Herzberg 's m o t i v ~ t o r s f o r i n c r e a s e d performance

more than t h e j u n i o r s t a f f o r ope ra t i ve s ,

2 The married workers would p r e f e r Herzberg l s

hyciene f a c t o r s more t han t h e unmarried workers,

36 That male workers would n o t have a h ighe r

p r e f e r ence f o r Herzherggs mot iva tors than t h e

female workers.

Workers who have been i n t h e employment o f

t h e bank f o r long would p r e f e r Herzberg t s

mot ivators .

5 Workers wi th high e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a inmen t

showed reference f o r HerzDergvs mot iva tors t o

t h e hyciene.

In each of t h e s e hypo thes i s , respondents i n d i c a t e d

t h a t some hygiene f a c t o r s e s p e c i a l l y s a l a r y , promotion

and j o t * s e c u r i t y have prominent e f f e c t on t h e i r

performance,

On the b a s i s of t h e s e f i n d i n g s , it was recommended

t h a t t o mot ivate a Niger ian worker, a mixture of hygiene

and mot iva tor + f a c t o r s should be a p p l i e d , t h e o p e r a t i v e s

be ing g iven .%re of hygienes and t h e s e n i o r s t a f f more

o f mot iva tors .

The s t u d y concluded t h a t i n gene ra l , Hemberg ' s

t h e o r y t h a t on ly t h e mot iva tors mot ivate a worker does

n o t app ly t o t h e Niger ian work environ.ment.

TABLE OF C0NTk;NTS

T i t l e

C e r t i f i c a t i o n

Ded ica t ion

Acknowledgement 0 a 0 0 iv

A b s t r a c t . . a a V

T a b l e o f Contents 8 . .. v i i i

CHI\P1rL.:H 1 : INTRODUCTION

1.1 ~ n t r o d u c t i o n / ~ r o b l e m S t a t e m e n t 1

1.2 O b j e c t i v e s of t h e Study 7 1.3 I-lypothe s is 8 1 .1+ D e f i n i t i o n of V a r i a b l e s 9

1.5 H i s t o r i c a l Background of ACR Ltd, 11

CHAPTKR 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

2.2 C l a s s i c a l T h e o r i e s of Mot iva t ion 18

2.2.1 Content Mo.de1.s

2.2.2 p rocess Models

2.3 P r i n c i p l e s of Mot iva t ion

2.4 Money a s a Mot iva to r

2.5 F a c t o r s t h a t Determine Response t o Mot iva t ion 83

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODO'LOGY

3.1 The P o p u l a t i o n 86 3.2 Method of Sampling 8 G

3.3 I n s t r u m e n t s f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n 87

v i i i

PAGE

3.4 Too l s f o r Analyz ing H e s u 1 . t ~ 87 3,5 I n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t P i l o t Survey 87 3.6 I n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Hesponse Hate 88

CHI\P?'EH 11 : NL1;SULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY

4.1 l n t r o d u c t i o n 89 4,2 C h s r a c t e r i s t i c s of Respondents 89 4,3 I n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t M o t i v a t i o n a l

V a r i a b l e s 93 4.4 l i e l a t i o n s h i p between C h a r a c t e r . i s t i c s

of Respondents and M o t i v a t i o n a l 94 V a r i a b l e s

4.5 A p p r a i s a l of t h e M o t i v a t i o n a l Packages O f f e r e d b y t h e ACB 125 Ltd, t o t h e Employees

CHAPTER 5 : SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 130 5,2 Summary o f f i n d i n g s / r e s u l t s 130 5.3 Recon~mendations 133 5.4 Conc lus ion 134

REFERENCES ' 136

APPENDICES 141

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

We l i v e i n a world organiza t ions , where people

combine t h e i r e f f o r t s t o achieve goals t h a t no ind iv idua l

could poss ib ly achieve alone, In a l l organizat ions, t h e

manegement of human resources is of t h e utmost

importance, This is because human beings a r e t h e

l ivewi re of every organizat ion. limployees of an

organiza t ion a r e one of i t s most v i t a l resources i n

t h a t c a p i t a l and machinery requ i re t h e in te rven t ion

of human beings t o make them funct ion. Even i f t h e

organiza t ion is highly automated, human a c t i o n is

s t i l l necessary t o make it work, In support of t h i s ,

L ike r t (1967 p.1 ) s t a t e s t h a t "every aspect of a firm's

a c t i v i t y is determined by the competence, motivation,

and ileneral e f fec t iveness of i t s human organizat ion.

O f a l l t h e t a sks of management, managing t h e human

component i s the c e n t r a l and most important t a sk

because a l l e l s e depend on how wel l it is done,"

To give people's a c t i v i t i e s i n des i red d i r e c t i o n s ,

knowledge of what leads people t o do th ings , what

motivates them is inev i t ab le , I n recogni t ion of t h e

importance of motivation, coupled with the need t o

c r e a t e job s a t i s f a c t i o n , scho la r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s

of management have propounded s e v e r a l theor ie s of

motivation, These scho la r s include Abraham Maslow

(Hierarchy of Needs ~ h e o r y ) , Chris Argyris (~mmatur i ty - Maturity continuum), Rensis Liker t (Systems of ~anagement ) , Victor H. Vroom (Expectancy - Valence ~ h e o r y ) , Fredr ick

Herzberg (TWO - Factor Theory), e t c ,

These t h e o r i e s were developed i n the United

S t a t e s of America and o the r h ighly i n d u s t r i a l i z e d

na t ions of the Western world, and were economically

and c u l t u r a l l y determined, Consequently, a b ig

quest ion mark hangs on t h e empir ica l v a l i d i t y and

usefu lness of these c l a s s i c a l motivat ional t h e o r i e s

i n Nigeria - a developing country, Socia l s c i e n t i s t s

i n Nigeria a r e divided a s t o whether these t h e o r i e s

a r e app l i cab le t o a s e t t i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h a t

of those who formulated them,

Osuagwu (1984 P; 104) argued t h a t although

motivat ional theor ie s a r e , t o a l a r g e extent , c u l t u r a l l y

determined Nigerian work environment a r e conducive f o r 1, \~

t h e i r appl ica t ion , Okpara (1984 P. 137) doubts the

a p p l i c a b i l i t y , He opines t h a t t h e c l a s s i c a l t h e o r i e s

of motivation appear t o have been unable t o answer

t h e ques t ions a r i s i n g from a Nigerian c u l t u r a l

context i n r e l a t i o n t o motivating workers. He

f u r t h e r argued t h a t it would appear t h a t the c u l t u r a l

b a s i s from which d a t a on motivation were der ived a r e

so t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from ours t h a t it is d i f f i c u l t

t o see the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e t h e o r i e s i n a

Nigerian context , These d i f f e r i n g views of Nigerian

exper t s regarding c l a s s i c a l motivat ional theor ie s

form the background f o r t h e s tudy proposed here.

It aims t o examine t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o Nikeria of

one of the major t h e o r i e s of motivation, namely

Herzberg's two-factor theory.

Herzberg's theory was chosen f o r study among

o the r t h e o r i e s because Herzberg proposed t h e first

r a d i c a l approach t o the s u b j e c t of motivation by

emphasizing i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s a s s o l e motivators,

In t h e words of LjLofor (1978 P, 9 ) . Herzberg's

"dual f a c t o r f 1 theory has completely shaken common

plzce motivation assumptions t o t h e i r foundation.

Most of the e a r l i e r management t h e o r i e s of motivation

including Fredrick Taylor 's s c i e n t i f i c management,

B. F. Skinner 's behaviour modification and Douglas

McCregor's theory X and theory Y were developed

around e x t r i n s i c rewards, Such t h e o r i e s hold t h e

view t h a t man i s an economically motivated animal

who can be made t o work harder by the promise of

e x t r i n s i c rewards - pay, job s e c u r i t y , working

condit ions, supervis ion, s t a t u s and so on, On t h e

o the r hand, Herzbergls two-factor theory emphasized

i n t r i n s i c ( o r s e l f adminis tered) rewards such a s

achievement, challenging work e t c t o motivate t h e

worker. But does Herzbergls p o s t u l a t i o n apply t o

workers i n Nigeria who t o i l i n an economy charac te r i zed

by under-development, hyper- inf la t ion , high dependency

r a t i o , low per cap i t a income and high c u l t u r a l value

f o r f i n a n c i a l achievement? I n o t h e r words, would Nigerian

workers p re fe r Merzbergls hygiene f a c t o r s t o motivate

them t o work harder? It i s t h i s quest ion t h a t t h i s

s tudy seeks t o address.

The focus of t h i s r e sea rch work was t o determine

by empir ica l means whether the Nigerian worker i s

motivated by Herzbergls motivator f a c t o r s o r r a t h e r

by the hygiene f a c t o r s which Herzberg pos tu la ted

a r e non motivators. Hence, we were t e s t i n g the v a l i d i t y

4

of Herzbergls two-factor theory i n Nigeria where t h e

worker i s s t i l l grappl ing with bare s u r v i v a l and

requ i res ma te r i a l th ings t o g r a t i f y h i s needs, This

t e s t was informed by t h e f a c t t h a t it is poss ib le f o r

p r a c t i t i o n e r s t o apply t h e o r i e s whose meri ts a r e

doubt fu l t o t h e i r s i t u a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y when such

t h e o r i e s were developed i n a d i f f e r e n t environment.

Such an app l i ca t ion would c r e a t e more problems than

it solves. Therefore, a popular theory such a s

Herzbergls need t o be subjected t o a t e s t of re levance

before adoption.

A p r i o r i , Herzbergls propos i t ion appears t o be

i n sharp con t ras t with some bas ic t r u t h s t h a t border

on t h e soc io-cul tura l and economic r e a l i t i e s of t h e

Nigerian worker and h i s environment, This r a i s e s a

doubt a s t o whether such a worker would be motivated

by purely i n t r i n s i c ' ( job) f a c t o r s . Vroomls theory

has shown t h a t one of the major components of motivation

i s valence i.e. value t h a t each ind iv idua l p laces on

rewards o r outcomes. Valence is i n t u r n a func t ion of

needs and need s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thus workers a r e l i k e l y

t o be motivated by those f a c t o r s t h a t g r a t i f y t h e i r

f e l t needs. 5

However, because of t h e var ious ca tegor ies of

o rgan iza t iona l members and t h e i r d i f f e rences i n need

s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l s , it was expected t h a t Herzberg1s

pos tu la t ion may apply i n pa r t . While Herzberg argued

t h a t only t h e job f a c t o r s motivate, t h i s s tudy was of

t h e view t h a t the outcome would most l i k e l y depend on

t h e ind iv idua l worker and h i s /he r circumstances ( a s

measured by t h e independent v a r i a b l e s of age, sex,

o r g ~ n i z a t i o n a l pos i t ion , e t c ) and may be t h a t i n

general most Nigerians would be motivated by hygiene

f a c t o r s . It is on da ta provided by t h i s type of

research t h a t w e can begin t o l a y t h e foundation f o r

a r e a l i s t i c system of reward t h a t w i l l e f f e c t i v e l y

motivate Nigerian workers t o super io r performance,

I n car ry ing out t h i s s tudy, workers of t h e

African Continental Bank Limited, Head Office, Lagos

were used a s respondents, This Bank was s e l e c t e d

on the bas i s of convenience of t ime, e f f o r t , f inance

and d is tance . Measurements were obtained by asking

employees f o r t h e i r preferences f o r var ious job

a t t i t u d e f a c t o r s proposed by Herzberg, In o the r words,

it was a preference study,

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

I n view of the above s t a t e d problem t h a t

n e c e s s i t a t e d t h i s study, t h e study would have a s i ts

f o c a l poin t t h e following objec t ives : -

( 1 ) To a s c e r t a i n f a c t o r s t h a t workers i n t h e

African Continental Bank Limited w i l l

p r e f e r i n order t o motivate them t o super io r

performance. In o t h e r words, w i l l they

p r e f e r Herzbergfs motivators o r hygiene

fac to r s .

(2) To a s c e r t a i n whether workersf sex, age,

m a r i t a l s t a t u s , o rgan iza t iona l pos i t ion ,

educat ional l e v e l and length of se rv ice

inf luence t h e i r preference f o r e i t h e r t h e

motivators o r t h e hygiene fac to r s .

( 3 ) To examine the motivat ional package o f fe red

by t h e management of African Continental

Bank Limited, with a view t o determining

t h e i r agreement o r otherwise with t h e i r

workers ' needs.

( 4 ) F ina l ly , t o make recommendations t o the

management of t h e Bank ways of improving

motivation among its workers,

1.3 HYPOTHESIS

The following hypothesis were t e s t e d i n t h e study:

HI : The s e n i o r s t a f f of African Continental

Bank would p r e f e r Herzberg's motivators

more than t h e jun io r s t a f f , who would

prefer t h e hygiene fac tors .

H2 : Married workers a r e l i k e l y t o p r e f e r

hygiene f a c t o r s than unmarried workers,

H3 : Male workers would have a higher

preference f o r Herzberg's motivators

than t h e female workers,

H4 : Workers who have put i n long se rv ice i n t h e

Bank would p r e f e r Herzberg's motivators

than workers with l e s s e r tenure who w i l l

p re fe r hygiene f a c t o r s ,

: Workers with high educat ional l e v e l 5 would have a h igher preference f o r

Herzberg I s motivators t h a n workers with

l e s s educat ional attainment.

1.4 Di3F I N I T IONS AND 1)ESCHIPTIONS OF IViAJOK

V l ~ i i I A B L l i s OF STUDY

High Education: This r e f e r s t o a minimum of a u n i v e r s i t y

degree br i t s equiva lent ) o r recognised

profess ional q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . Thus

holders of HND/B. Sc/M. Sc/MEM/Ph.D/

ACA/ACIB e tc . f a l l i n t h i s cutegory,

For t h e purpose of t h i s study, any

q u a l i f i c a t i o n below HND i s regarded

a s low education.

Long Service: This term a p p l i e s t o workers of t h e

Bank who have put i n t e n o r more years

of s e r v i c e o

Senior S t a f f : These are workers of t h e Bank who

a r e pn t h e o f f i c e r grade O G l l - OG5),

comprising t h e Accountants, Ass i s t an t

Managers etc. For t h e purpose of

t h i s study, a l l workers i n t h e

management category a r e a l s o included

i n Senior S ta f f .

Married workers: This covers a l l ca tegor ies of workers

who a r e l e g a l l y married and include

couples who, though separa ted o r

widowed, have not obtained legal

d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e i r marriage,

The r a t i o n a l e f o r including these va r i ab les i s

t h a t it is necessary t o a s c e r t a i n t h e e x t e n t t o which

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of employees a s measured by

educat ional l e v e l , length of s e r v i c e , s t a t u s e t c ,

a f f e c t t h e i r preferences f o r t h e hygiene o r motivator

f a c t o r s , and hence .provide motivat ional package

appropr ia te t o each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , with a view t o

spur r ing a l l workers of t h e bank t o super io r performance,

The re l evan t information f o r t h e a n a l y s i s of

t h e s e va r i ab les were obtained from quest ions 7 t o 19

of t h e quest ionnaire instrument.

1.5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE AFRICAN

CONTINENTAL BANK LIMITED

The African Continental Dank Ltd. was born i n

1944, foll-owing an increas ing n a t i o n a l i s t a g i t a t i o n

f o r p o l i t i c a l and economic freedom i n Nigeria.

Economic independence meant . for the n a t i o n a l i s t s

the e f f e c t i v e share i n , and c o n t r o l of the economic

l i f e of t h e country by Nigerians,

Xith t h e increase i n indigenous enterpreneurship,

it became more d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e African businessmen

and women t o g e t c r e d i t f a c i l i t i e s from the e x p a t r i a t e

banks then dominating t h e whole banking indus t ry i n

the country. Hence, the re was a g r e a t need f o r t h e

bank of the people, ready t o l i b e r a l i s e c r e d i t t o

Nigerians among o thers , and thus f i l l the c r e d i t gap

l e f t i n the economy. It was f e l t t h a t such an

indigenous Ir'ank would go a long way t o enable Nigerians

p a r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y i n t h e economic l i f e of t h e

na t ion , and thereby win economic freedom, Consequently,

i n 194.4, the H t Hon ( ~ r . ) Nnamdi Azikiwe, t h e doyen

of Nigerian nationalism, acquired Tinubu Proper t i e s

Limited which he renamed Tinubu Bank Limited. In 1947,

t h e name of t h e bank was changed t o the African

Cont inen ta l Bank Limited,

The year 1956 was a c r i t i c a l year i n t he h i s t o r y

of t h e B:lnk, h e r a l d i n g t h e famous F o s t e r Su t ton

T r i h n a l which inqu i r ed i n t o t h e a s s e t s of t he bank

and t h e investment of i$2 mi l l i ono f Las t e rn Nit;eria

Marketing Board fund i n t h e bank. Following t h e

r e p o r t , t h e ownership of t h e bank was acqui red by

t h e t hen Eas te rn Niger ia Government.

Cur ren t ly , t h e bank has 122 branches nationwide

and an employment s t r e n g t h of about 6,490, ou t of

which about 4,478 and 2,012 r e p r e s e n t j u n i o r and

s e n i o r s t a f f r e s p e c t i v e l y . The banks s e r v i c e s t o i ts

customers cover a wide range of normal banking and

f i n a n c i s l s e r v i c e s such a s co rpo ra t e banking, f o r e i g n

exchange d e a l i n g , t r e a s u r y and f i n a n c i a l s e r v i c e s ,

correspondent banking, domestic money market s e r v i c e s ,

d e b t convers ion programme, t r a d e f i nance , d e p o s i t

accounts e tc .

CHAPTEIi TWO

INTHOXJCT I O N

E'eople p a r t i c i p a t e i n an organized e n t e r p r i s e

i n o r d e r t o ach ieve goa l s t h a t t hey cannot a t t a i n

o s i n d i v i d u a l s , But t h i s does no t mean t h a t t hey

w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y work and c o n t r i b u t e w i l l i n g l y t o

be s u r e t h a t t h e s e g o s l s are accomplished. This

means, of course , t h a t a l l t hose who a r e r e spons ib l e

f o r t h e management of any o rgan iza t ion must b u i l d

i n t o t h e e n t i r e system f a c t o r s t h a t w i l l induce people

t o c o n t r i b u t e a s e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y a s

p o s s i b l e , w i th a view t o g e t t i n g t h e suppor t bf

h i g h l y m o t i v ~ t e d people. This c a l l s f o r an

unders tanding of human behaviour,

ill human behaviour is d i r e c t e d toward the

s a t i s f a c t i o n of needs. Behaviour o r i g i n a t e s i n a

cause of some kind, which determines need. The

cause t r i d g e r s o f f a s t imulus , which then develops

w i t h i n t h e person a need, a want, a t e n s i o n o r a

mot iva t ion toward behaviour t h a t w i l l s a t i s f y t h e

need. Hence behaviour i s goal d i rec ted , As t h e

goa l i s achieved, the need is s a t i s f i e d and t h e

stirnulus wiped out , thereby completing the cycle ,

Another cycle of behaviour aimed a t s a t i s f y i n g some

o t h e r needs is i n i t i s t e d . This process goes on

continously. Figure one shows a simple model of

human behaviour a s given by Leavit (1964 P. 389).

FIGURE 1 BASIC CYCLE OF H U W N BEHAVIOUR

Need Want

1

i;timulus Tension Cehaviour , Goal * Discomfort

(motivation)

Three bas ic concepts a r e involved i n t h i s

model. of human beh%iour :

( a ) Human behaviour i s caused. It i s not random,

t h o u g h the cause may be d i f f i c u l t t o i d e n t i f y ,

In a psychological sense, the cause of t h e

behaviour l i e s outs ide the person. T h i s irrlyllles

t h a t he red i ty and environment a f f e c t Sehaviour,

s i n c e indiv iuuals may be motivzted toward

d i f f e r e n t goals by the same ex te rna l inf luences

o r t h e same goals by d i f f e r e n t e x t e r n a l

inf luences.

( b ) Human tehzviour i s goal d i rec ted . People & ? h a v e

i n ways intended t o s a t i s f y t h e i r needs.

( c ) People a r e motivated toward g-oal-seeking

behaviour i n response t o an i n t e r n a l l y

experienced need, which may be s t a t e d a s a

tens ion , discomfort o r want.

The goals sought by indiv iduals can be r e l a t i v e l y

t ang ib le , such a s monetary reward o r p r o m o t ~ t i o n , o r

in tang ib le , such a s s e l f esteem o r job s a t i s f a c t i o n .

The rev1ard.s ava i l ab le a r e genera l ly c l a s s i f i e d under

two hezdings - i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c rewards,

~ r i e f l y , i n t r i n s i c rewards a r e those t h s t de r ive from

t h e ind iv idua l s own experience ; e x t r i n s i c rewards a r e

those t h a t a r e conferred on a person from outs ide ,

The l e a d e r who wishes t o i n c i t e h i s men t o r each an

o b j e c t i v e must hold ou t t h e promise of r eward ( s )

once t h e o b j e c t i v e i s a t t a i n e d , Psycho log i s t s

have found ou t t h a t t h e rewards people seek i n l i f e

a r e t hose t h a t f u l f i l t h e i r wants, d r i v e s and needs

which i s t h e bed rock of mot ivat ion.

Mot ivat ion h2s i t s r o o t s i n motives w i t h i n a

person which induce him t o behave i n a p a r t i c u l a r

msnner. Human motives evolve p a r t l y from t h e

psychological . cond i t i ons t h a t c r e a t e s e n s a t i o n s of

hunzcr , t h i r s t , pa in and s e x u a l i t y , and p a r t l y from

t h e s o c i e t y i t s e l f . In t h e words o f ~ i l b e r s (1961

1'. 532) lt,Uthough b a s i c p h y s i o l o g i c a l 2nd s o c i a l

needs nuke f o r u n i f o r ~ i t i e s i n ~ n o t i v e s , t h e r e a r e

m;ny d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e motives of people from

d i f I e r e n t c u l t u r a l background. Consequently, t h e

problem o f mot iva t ion should be viewed Irom t h e

p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e c u l t u r a l norms of t h e s o c i e t y i n

which t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s s i t u a t e d t t . Thus an

i n d i v i d u a l ' s motives a r e modified by t h e customs

and norms t h a t p r e v a i l i n a group o r s o c i e t y ,

A c u l t u r e may be simply regarded a s t h e t o t a l i t y

o f norms t h z t govern behaviour i n a s o c i e t y .

Kot iva t ion can be d e f i n e d as a w i l l i n g n e s s

t o expend energy t o ach ieve a g o a l o r a reward (uedch,

1975 1'. 174). Fut simply, mot ivdt ion can be desc r ibed

a s behaviour caused by some s f imulus bu t d i r e c t e d

toward 2 d e s i r e d outcome. It i s t h e concept used t o

descri?ne t h e f o r c e s wit,hin an i n d i v i d u a l which

I n i t i a t e , ene rg i ze and d i r e c t behaviour. Motivat ion

has some b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : F i r s t , it ensu res

t h a t people c a r r y o u t e f f e c t i v e l y and w i l l i n g l y t h e

t a s k s ass igned t o them. Secondly, rnotiva-Lion cannot

observed b u t can on ly be i n f e r r e d , mainly from

observed Ixhaviour and a t t i t u d e surveys. The key

f e a t u r e of motivatLon i s t h a t it determines t h e

e x t e n t t o which a n i n d i v i d u a l d e s i r e s t o p l a c e h i s

knowled,e and s k i l l a t t h e d i s p o s a l of o t h e r s , and,

more t h u n t h a t , t o shrug o f f t h e e f f e c t s of o b s t a c l e s

and d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s o doing ole, 1986, P. 34).

The b a s i c mot iva t ion model c o n t a i n s t h r e e

s t e p s - f i c u r e two - namely:

( i ) Stimulus. This i s t h e p r o c e s s t s t a r t i n g

p o i n t and inc1.udes u n s a t i s f i e d need which

cause t e n s i o n w i t h i n t h e i nd iv idua l .

( i i ) Coal d i r e c t e d behaviour 'toward s a t i s f y i n g

t h e need and e l i m i n a t i n g t h e t e n s i o n caused

by need f r u s t r a t i o n .

( i i i ) Desi red outcome o r need s a t i s f a c t i o n . This

completes t h e mot iva t ion31 p roces s i nvo lv ing

t h e p a r t i c u l a r need.

2.2 CLASSICAL THEOII IES O F N O T I V A T I C N

I"lotivation a s a concept i s one of t h e most

r e sea rched a r e a s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i f e , iiese-?rchers

1

3t irnulus (need, d r i v e , i n c e ~ l t i v e )

have soucht t o e x p l a i n how and why people a r e a c t u a t e d

t o behave a s t h e y do, and how t h e y can be made t o

C

Aypropr i a t c behaviour . . e

behave i n a manner suppor t i ve o f o rgan iza t iona l . g o a l s ,

C l a s s i c a l mot iva t ion t h e o r i e s can be c a t e s o r i z e d i n t o

1

.

t1wo Lroups - con ten t t h e o r i e s a n d p rocess t h e o r i e s ,

b e s i r e d outcome /

g o a l

COXTENT MODELS

Content models a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y t h e e lements

w i t h i n t h e employee and work environment which s p u r

end s u s t a i n behaviour. They focus on t h e s t imu lus ,

i.e. on what s p e c i f i c a l l y causes mot ivat ion. Lxponerits

i n c l u d e such well-known names a s Maslow, Herzberg and

Ncgregor.

MASLO\!rV S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS THEORY

The need h i e r a r c h y of Maslow (1954) is perhaps

t h e most widely d i s cus sed , researched and popu la r

work on mot ivc t ion model. Maslow p o s t u l a t e d t h a t

i n d i v i d u a l s a re motivated t o a c t by i n t e r n a l f o r c e s

c o n s i s t i n g o f needs which a r e a r ranged i n a h i e r a r chy ,

These needs when a c t i v a t e d produce t e n s i o n w i t h i n t h e

i n d i v i d u a l who w i l l t h e n a c t i n a manner t o reduce

it wi th a view t o r e s t o r i n g i n t e r n a l equ i l ib r ium, by

s eek ing t o s a t i s f y t h e needs o f v a r i o u s kinds. Once

a c e r t a i n need o r s e t o f needs becomes s a t i s f i e d ,

it l o s e s i t s potency a s a mot iva t ing fo rce .

Hence t h e saying: A s a t i s f i e d need i s no t a motivator

of toehaviour. Only u n s a t i s f i e d needs inf luence

behaviour. A s soon a s a need is s a t i s f i e d , o t h e r

needs emerge. This process is unending, It contanues

from ? i r t h t o death. Thus man is a cont inuing

wanting animal,

Mislow argues t h a t t h e needs which iridividuals

pursue w e universa l ac ross t h e board and t h a t w e a l l

progress through the same order of needs i n p r i o r i t y

of importance a s :

(i) Physiological needs

( i i ) Safety needs

( i i i ) Socia l needs

( i v ) Esteem needs

(v) Self - Actual iza t ion needs

I 'hysiological Needs: A t t h e lowest l e v e l , bu t

pre-eminent i n importance a r e t h e physiologica.1

needs. These a r e t h e ?basic needs f o r sus ta in ing

human l i f e i t s e l f . Economic motives a r e fundamental

an$ a mnnfs prime concern must be t h a t h i s e a r n i r g s

a r e adequate t o take care of h i s uncvoidable needs

and t h a t of h i s family. Physiolokical needs include

t h e fundamental requirements of t h e phys ica l organism

such a s food, water, a i r , c lo th ing , s h e l t e r , s l e e p and

sex. Without these bas ic needs, no human bein'g ca res

about something e l s e . Unless t h e circumstances a r e

unusual, man's needs f o r love, s t a t u s and recogni t ion

a r e i n operat ive. B u t when he r e g u l a r l y and adequately

s a t i s f i e s t h e phys io log ica l needs, they cease t o be

important motivators of behaviour.

Safe ty Needs: When t h e phys io logica l needs a r e

reasonably s a t i s f i e d , needs a t t h e next higher l e v e l

begin t o dominate man's behaviour t o motivate him.

These a r e c a l l e d s a f e t y needs. Safety needs a r e c l o s e l y

r e l a t e d t o t h e f i r s t l e v e l of needs because they involve

longer-run maintenance of l i f e and well being. They a r e

concerned with t h e powerful d e s i r e t o be f r e e from f e a r

and depr iva t ion - t o p r e f e r t h e known over t h e unknown,

t h e c l e a r l y defined over t h e uninformed, the f a m i l i a r

over the unfamiliar,, p ro tec t ion f rom physical danger

( f i r e , acc ident e t c ) , freedom from work place hazards

and t h e ' q u e s t f o r s e c u r i t y (e,g, avoidance of l o s s of a

job, property o r s h e l t e r ) .

The f a c t t h a t every employee - employer r e l a t i o n s h i p

i s a dependent one i n favour of the employer, who owns

c a p i t a l and pays f o r the o the r f a c t o r s of production,

makes s a f e t y needs t o assume a considerable importance

t o employees, be they i n commerce, indus t ry o r i n s t i t u t i o n .

Consequently, a r b i t r a r y management a c t i o n s , behaviour

which arouses uncer ta in ty with r e spec t t o continued

employment o r which r e f l e c t s favour i t i sm and/or discr imi-

na t ion , unpredictable admin i s t r a t ion of pol icy e t c can be

powerful motivators of the s a f e t y needs i n the employment

r e l a t i o n s h i p a t every l e v e l i n t h e organiza t ion , but with

g r e a t e r i n t e n s i t y a t the lower l eve l .

Soc ia l Needs: When man's phys io logica l needs a r e

s a t i s f i e d and he is no longer f e a r f u l about h i s phys ica l

welfare , h i s s o c i a l needs become important motivators of

h i s behaviour. Socia l needs def ine the human being ' s

wants and needs f o r belonging, a s soc ia t ion , g iv ing and

rece iv ing f r i endsh ip and love, acceptance by o the r s e t c .

They r e f l e c t the fundamental requirements. of t h e s o c i e t y I

fop hea l thy interdependency and co-operative r e l a t ionsh ips .

When man's s o c i a l and/or s a f e t y needs a r e thwarted, he

behaves i n ways which tend t o d e f e a t t h e organiza t ional

objec t ives . He becomes r e s i s t a n t , an tagon i s t i c , and

22

uncooperat ive . But t h i s behaviour is a consequence, n o t

a cause.

Management i n t h e l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s today recognize

t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e s e needs and t r y t o h e l p employees

s a t i s f y them by o rgan iz ing and sponsor ing company p a r t i e s ,

f o o t b a l l teams, s p o r t s c lub , and o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l

a c t i v i t i e s . But management of most s m a l l e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

f e a r i n g group h o s t i l i t y t o i t s own o b j e c t i v e s , o f t e n go

t o cons ide rab l e l e n g t h s t o c o n t r o l and d i r e c t human e f f o r t s

i n ways t h a t a r e i n i m i c a l t o t h e n a t u r a l l lgroupinessM of

human kle ings .

Esteem o r Ego Needs: Above t h e s o c i a l needs i n

t he s ense t h a t t h e y do n o t become mot iva tors u n t i l lower

needs a r e reasonably s a t i s f i e d a r e e g o i s t i c needs. The

ego need i s c l o s e l y t i e d t o t h e s o c i a l need. Once people

b e ~ i n t o s a t i s f y t h e i r need t o belong, they tend t o want

t o be he ld i n e s t e e m h o t h by themselves and by o t h e r s ,

They want t o be looked up t o because t hey s t and o u t from

t h e crowd i n one o r more a r e a s . This k ind of need produces

such s a t i s f a c t i o n s a s power, p r e s t i g e , s t a t u s and s e l f

conf idence. The e g o i s t i c needs a r e o f two kinds:

( i ) Those needs t h a t r e l a t e t o one ' s s e l f

esteem - needs f o r s e l f confidence, independence,

achievement, competence, knowledge e t c ,

( i i ) Those needs t h a t r e l a t e s t o one's r e p u t a t i o n

- needs f o r s t a t u s , recogni t ion , apprec ia t ion ,

r e spec t of colleagues.

Unlike t h e lower needs, these (higher needs) a r e

r a r e l y s a t i s f i e d . Man seeks i n d e f i n i t e l y f o r more

s a t i s f a c t i o n of them once they have become important t o

him. However, they do not appear i n any s i g n i f i c a n t

way u n t i l physiological , s a f e t y and s o c i a l needs a r e

a l l reasonably s a t i s f i e d .

I n d u s t r i a l organizat ions tend t o o f f e r l i t t l e o r

no oppor tun i t i e s f o r t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of these e g o i s t i c

needs t o people a t lower l e v e l s i n the o rgan iza t iona l

hierarchy. The conventional methods of organizing work t th&e 9 give l i t t l e heed a s p e c t s of human motivation,

Se l f Actual izat ion Needs: This i s the capstone

On t h e h ierarchy of man's needs advanced by Maslow,

These &e t h e needs f o r r e a l i z i n g one 's own p o t e n t i a l i t i e s ,

s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t and c r e a t i v i t y , and f o r continued s e l f

development of one I s a c t i v i t i e s t o the f u l l e s t . Since

hard ly any one ever develops a l l h i s a b i l i t i e s , t h i s need

w i l l always be p a r t i a l l y unsa t i s f i ed .

The f i rs t two l e v e l s of need on Maslowts h ierarchy

a r e c a l l e d lower order needs because they usual ly take

minimum amounts of satisfac-tion before higher order needs

a r e ac t iva ted . Uiagramatically, Piaslow's hierarchy

of human needs is shown on f i g u r e three.

The implicat ions of t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l nature of

human motivation a r e important f o r an understanding of why

people behave a s they do. If a person has bare ly enough

food, water and s h e l t e r t o surv ive , h i s e n t i r e energies a r e

devoted t o eking out an exis tence. He is not i n t e r e s t e d

i n s t a t u s and pres t ige . Once bas ic phys io logica l and

s a f e t y wants a r e met, then people s t r i v e f o r higher l e v e l

needs. Consequently, each ind iv idua l should be motivated

according t o h i s l e v e l of need on the hierarchy. A t t h i s

juncture, it is worthy t o mention t h a t t h e depr iva t ion

and economic hardship most people i n developing coun t r i e s

l i k e Nigeria face appears t o d i v e r t t h e i r energies i n t o

t h e s t r u g g l e t o s a t i s f y lower l e v e l needs while ego and

se l f -Lul f i lment needs a r e more of re legated t o t h e

background.

P a r t 01 the appeal of Maslow's Need ~ i e r a r c h y Theory

i s t h a t it provides both a theory of human motives by

c l a s s i f y i n g basic human needs i n a hierarchy, and a

theory of human motivation t h a t r e l a t e s these needs t o

genera l behaviour. In add i t ion , it is easy t o comprehend,

Although t h i s hypothesized h ierarchy of human needs

has had a g r e a t appeal a s t h e o r e t i c a l model, it has not

gone uncr i t i c i zed , The c r i t i c i s m s include:

F i r s t l y , t h a t needs do not follow a hierarchy,

Maslow pos tu la ted t h a t t h e r e is a d e f i n i t e rank order

p r i o r i t y of human needs, To t e s t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h i s

s ta tement , Lawler and S u t t l e (1 972 Po 265) c o l l e c t e d da ta

on one hundred and eighty-seven managers i n two d i f f e r e n t

organiza t ions over a period, They found l i t t l e evidence

t o support Maslowfs theory t h a t human needs conform t o a

hierarchy. This was a l s o the f indings i n Hal l (1968

P. 12) and Por ter (1962 P. 375). In the words of

Berkowitz (1969 P. 50), the not ion of such a h ierarchy

seems t o be l i t t l e more than an academic exe rc i se i n de f i -

ning t h e b a s i c nature of u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d pre-social man,

Secondly, empir ical support f o r the theory has been

hard t o come by,

Thirdly, t h e theory ignores t h e way the c u l t u r e of

a s o c i e t y and i t s sub-cultures s t r u c t u r e t h e a s p i r a t i o n s

and expecta t ions of ind iv idua l s and groups,

Fourthly, t h e MaslowTs need h ierarchy concept has

l e d many people t o f e e l t h a t t h e worker can never be

s a t i s f i e d with h i s job. How a re you going t o solve t h e

delemma of t r y i n g t o motivate workers who have a

cont inously revolving s e t of needs? Since each ind iv idua l

may p resen t a t any one time a d i f f e r e n t scramble of

psychological need l i s t , a systematic personnel p r a c t i c e

hoping t o c a t e r t o the most prepotent needs of i t s

e n t i r e working force i s defea ted by t h e na ture of problems,

However, some l o y a l i s t s of t h i s theory claim t h a t t h e r e

i s s u f f i c i e n t homogeneity within var ious groups of

employees t o make f o r a r e l a t i v e s i m i l a r i t y of "need

h i e r a r c h i e s n within each group, B u t even so, t h e

changes i n prepotency f o r t h e group w i l l occur and

personnel adminis t ra t ion w i l l have t o keep up with

them. Thus personnel adminis t ra t ion is reduced t o t h e

e s s e n t i a l of labour - management bargaining,

F I G U R E 3 MODEL OF MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEUDS

PROGRESSXON OF NEEDS

Higher - order Needs

Lower - order Needs

' h e n one need g e t s rehsonably s a t i s f i e d , t h e

nex t h ighe r one becomes a mot iva tor of behaviour, The

peak o f each l e v e l must be passed be fo re t h e next l e v e l

can beg in t o assume a dominant r o l e .

APPLICATION OF MASLOW 'S THEOHY I N BUSINESS OHGANIZATIONS

Since i n d i v i d u a l s have vary ing needs, and what

c o n s t i t u t e s s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i e s from one person t o

ano the r , it means t h a t pe rcep t ive management must t a k e

a s i t u a t i o n a l o r contingency approach t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

of Maslowts theory, Nhat needs t hey must appea l w i l l

depend on t h e p e r s o n a l i t y , wants and d e s i r e s of i n d i v i d u a l s ,

In p r a c t i c e , management can he lp f u l f i l subord ina tes

f i v e l e v e l s of needs i n s e v e r a l ways:

( I ) Phys io log ica l Needs :- By provid ing employees

wi th f a i r wages, f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and comfortable

working condi t ions ,

( 2 ) Sa fe ty Needs : By provid ing job s e c u r i t y and

s a f e working condi t ions .

Other mo t iva t iona l f a c t o r s t h a t can be provided by

management f o r t h e purpose of meeting t h e workers p h y s i c a l

- p h y s i o l o g i c a l and s a f e t y - needs inc lude t h e fo l lowing

( ~ o x e , 1966, p. 122) :

( i i i )

( i v )

( v i i )

( v i i i )

Wages t h a t r e f l e c t community s t anda rds and

i n t e r n a l equ i ty .

A system of mer i t i n c r e a s e s i n which rewards

a r e earned by good performance and with,-held

i f performance i s subs t anda rd . .

Objec t ive c r i t e r i a f o r performance eva lua t ion .

Equ i t ab l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of bonuses, overt ime and

o t h e r f i n a n c i a l rewards.

F a i r methods o f job and s h i f t assignment,

Employment p o l i c i e s t h a t p r o t e c t t h e worker

from a r b i t r a r y job l o s s .

Enforcement of s a f e t y r u l e s and use of

a p p r o p r i a t e s a f e t y equipment.

Employment p r a c t i c e s t h a t e l i m i n a t e f a v o u r i t i s m

and d i s c r imina t ion .

Adequate insurance cover.

Competi t ive t ime-off p o l i c i e s , p o s s i b l y wi th

bonuses f o r a t t endance and l e n g t h of s e r v i c e ,

S o c i a l Needs: By prov id ing r e c r e a t i o n a l

f a c i l i t i e s , company sponsored end of yea r

p a r t i e s and encouraging co-operat ion with

f e l l ow workers,

(4 ) Esteem Needs: By prov id ing workers wi th

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , s i g n i f i c a n t job a c t i v i t i e s ,

and r e c o g n i t i on f o r good work.

(5) S e l f A c t u a l i z a t i o n Needs: By prov id ing a

cha l l eng ing job, advancement o p p o r t u n i t i e s and

encouraging c r e a t i v i t y and h igh achievement,

HERZBERG IS TWO - FACTOR MODEL

Another popular c o n t e n t t heo ry of mot iva t ion is

Herzbe rg8s Not iva tor - Hygiene model. The t h e o r y of

Herzberg and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (1959) r e p r e s e n t s a n a t t e m p t

t o produce a r e f i n e d v e r s i o n of Maslow's theory , by

making it more s p e c i I i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i n d u s t r i a l

s i t u a t i o n . Consequently Herzberg a t t empted t o t a i l o r

Maslowts approach t o t h e work environment by i d e n t i f y i n g

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s t h a t corresponded t o Maslow8s

needs. For example, Maslow8s phys io log i ca l , s a f e t y and

s o c i a l needs took on t h e Herzbergian look of pay, job

s e c u r i t y , company po l i cy , and superv i s ion . Maslow's

ego and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n needs were t ransformed i n t o

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s o f achievement, r e c o g n i t i o n ,

and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

31

Herzberg began h i s i n q u i r y by conduct ing i n depth

i n t e r v i e w s of job a t t i t u d e s w i th two hundred eng inee r s

and accoun tan t s i n n ine companies r e p r e s e n t i n g P i t t s b u r g h ' s

i n d u s t r y . H i s i n t e rv i ews probed sequences of e v e n t s i n

t h e wolnk l i v e s o f respondents t o determine t h e f a c t o r s

t h a t were involved i n t h e i r f e e l i n g bo th e x c e p t i o n a l l y

happy and, c o n v e r s e l . ~ , e x c e p t i o n a l l y unhappy, wi th t h e i r

jobs. The job a t t i t u d e f a c t o r s t e s t e d inc lude r e c o g n i t i o n ,

achievement, s a l a r y , i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

company p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , working cond i t i ons , work

i t s e l f , p e r s o n a l l i f e , s t a t u s , and job s e c u r i t y , The

r e s u l t o f t h e t e s t was as f o l l o w s ( ~ e r z b e r ~ , 1959, p. 60):

Job a t t i t u d e f a c t o r s

Achievement

Recogni t ion

Work i t s e l f

K e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Udvancemnt

S a l a r y

P o s s i b i l i t y o f growth

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Hela t ions-Subordinate

S t a t u s

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Re l a t i ons - Supe r io r

I n t e r p e r s o n a l k l a t i o n s - Pee r s

Supe rv i s ion - t e c h n i c a l

Company p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

Workin:; Condi t ions

Pe r sona l l i f e

Job & c u r i t y

* The percen tages t o t a l more t han

To ta l Hesponses i n %

41

100y" s i n c e more

t h a n one f a c t o r can appear i n any s i n g l e sequence of

even ts . The g r a p h i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s r e s u l t

i s shown i n f i g u r e 4,

FIGURE 4 FACTORS AFFECTING JOB ATTITUDES

FACTORS LEADING TO EXTREME DISSATISFACTION

FACTORS LEADING TO EXTREME SATISFACTION

P ERCENTAGE FREQUENCY I PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY

I

I 1 I RECOGNITION 1 I I

I I WORK ITSELF' I

I ( RESPONSIBILITY

ADVANCEMENT * COMPAYY POLICY k ADMINIST RATION / /

I SUPERVISION 4 RELATIONSHIP ultt~

,

WORK CONDITIONS 4

RELATIONSHIP WIT PEERS I I

PERSONAL

RELATIONSHIP WITH SUBORDINATES

NOTE: 1. T h e l e n g t h o f e a c h @box* d e n o t e s t h e f r e q u e n c y with w h i c h t h e fac tor o c c u r e d i n t h e ' s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . The d e p t h o f e a c h ' b o x * d e n o t e s t h e r e l a t i v e d i r e c t i ~ n o f good or b a d f e e l i n g s a b o u t t h e job .

2. T h a t m o t i v a t o r s h a v e t h e i r n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s e .g l a c k of a c h i e v e m e n t c a n l e a d to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ; a n d

3 . T h a t h y g i e n e f a c t o r s h a v e t h e i r p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s e.g. s a l a r y c a n be:source of s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Herzberg f i n a l l y fo rmula ted a m o t i v ~ t i o n model t h a t

ha s two d i s t i n c t i v e dimensions :

( a ) The hygiene f a c t o r s , which can e i t h e r cause

o r prevent d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . These were

found toy Herzberg and h i s a s s o c i a t e s t o be

on ly I 1 d i s s a t i s f i e r s v and n o t mot iva tors ,

T h e i r presence w i l l n o t mot ivate people i n

a n o rgan iza t i on , y e t t h e y must be p r e s e n t

o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l a r i s e . I n otherwords,

t h e s e f a c t o r s do n o t r e s u l t i n emnployee

mot iva t ion and p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards work.

T h e i r adequacy w i l l e l i m i n a t e f e e l i n g s o f

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , t h a t i s , c r e a t e a I lneutra l"

a t t i t u d e toward t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h e

job bu t w i l l n o t c r e a t e s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Herzberg l s t e n d i s s a t i f i e r s o r maintenance

f a c t o r s a r e wages, f r i n g e b e n e f i t s , p h y s i c a l

working cond i t i ons , job s e c u r i t y , s t a t u s ,

t e c h n i c a l supe rv i s ion , i n t e r -pe r sona l r e l a t i o n s

wi th subo rd ina t e s , p e e r s and s u p e r i o r s , o v e r a l l

company p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( ~ e r z b e r g ,

1959, p. 144). Cole (1986, p. 35) used a

motoring analogy t o i l l u s t r b t e hygiene

f a c t o r s , According t o him, hygiene f a c t o r s

can be considered a s f i l l i n g up t h e p e t r o l

t ank - i , e t h e c a r w i l l n o t go i f t h e r e

is no f u e l - b u t r e f u e l l i n g i t s e l f does n o t

g e t t h e v e h i c l e under way. For forward movement,

t h e c a r e l e c t r i c s must be swi tched on and t h e

s t a r t e r operated. This is t h e e f f e c t c r e a t e d

by t h e mot ivators .

The mot ivator f a c t o r s , - a l l r e l a t e d t o job

con ten t - which l e a d t o t h e development o f

p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e and a c t a s i n d i v i d u a l

i ncen t ive s . These P a c t o r s a r e l i k e a b u i l t - i n

g e n e r a t o r t h a t p rov ides an i n t e r n a l d r i v e

toward s u p e r i o r performance. They mo t i v a t e

employees when p r e s e n t b u t do n o t r e s u l t i n

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n when absen t from t h e work

p lace . Herzberg (1959, p, 143) gave t h e s e

f a c t o r s a s ' r e cogn i t i on , f e e l i n g of accornplish-

ment and achievement, oppor tun i ty f o r advancement,

p o s s i b i l i t y of pe r sona l growth, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

and work i t s e l f . Herzberg saw t h e key t o

meeting t h e s e needs i n i n c r e a s i n g a pe r son ' s

36

freedom on t h e job, Each person should be

g iven a d d i t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y , g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y

t o use t a l e n t s and more s e l f c o n t r o l over t h e

Job i t s e l f . These i d e a s have come t o be c a l l e d

job enrichment ( ~ e r z b e r g , 1968, p. 59). The

term I1job enrichment" p l a c e s emphasis on u s i n g

more of t h e employees t a l e n t s and s k i l l s ,

r a t h e r t h a n simply g i v i n g t h e person more o r

d i f f e r e n t work i n t h e form of job r o t a t i o n o r

job enlargement,

The mo t iva t i ona l f a c t o r s occur mostly i n d i r e c t

connec t ion wi th t h e job s o t h a t performance of t h e work

becomes se l f - rewarding. Employees o b t a i n t h i s reward f o r

themselves. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e maintenance f a c t o r s

occur mostly i n t h e environment t h a t surrounds t h e job,

Employees t y p i c a l l y have minimum c o n t r o l over t h e s e

cond i t i ons ,

F igu re 5 summarizes t h e f a c t o r s r e p o r t e d i n t h e

o r i g i n a l Herzberg study. A s shown i n f i g u r e 5-1 each

of t h e s e two f a c t o r s o p e r a t e s p r i m a r i l y , but n o t always,

i n one d i r e c t i o n . Since each of t h e s e two f a c t o r s i s

d i f f e r e n t , t h e Herzberg model is o f t e n c a l l e d a two-

f a c t o r model o f mot ivat ion,

FIGURE 5 MOTIVATIONAL A N D MAINTENANCE FACTORS

MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS MAINTENANCE FACTORS

work i t s e l f

A c h i e v e m e n t

p o s s i b i l i t y

Advancement

~ e c o g n i t i o n

S t a t u s

R e l a t i o n s h i p

g r o w t h elationsh ship

s u p e r v i s i o n :

w i t h

w i t h

s u p e r i o r s

p e e r s

t e c h n i c a l

Company p o l i c y a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

J O ~ s e c u r i t y

w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s

S a l a r y

P e r s o n a l l i f e .

FIGURE 5-1 COMPARISON OF MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS WITH

MAINTENANCE FACTORS

PRESENT

I t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ] I

I

ABSENT

High p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s

N e u t r a l H i g h n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s

Cne i n t e r e s t i n g d i s cove ry of Herzberg 's s t udy was

t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n appear t o be

somewhat independent. Those f a c t o r s t h a t cause

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n a r e d i f f e r e n t from those t h a t r e s u l t

i n s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thus s a t i s f a c t i o n i s n o t s imply t h e

absence 01 d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . One can f e e l no d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

and y e t no t be s a t i s f i e d . F i n a l l y , Herzberg concluded

t h a t t o g e t t h e worker t o work ha rde r w i l l i n g l y , t h e

mo t ivz to r s should be emphasized.

Althoukh i n h i s s t u d i e s , a few people r e p o r t e d t h a t

t h e y rece ived job s a t i s f a c t i o n and consequen.tly mot iva t ion

s o l e l y from maintenance f a c t o r s , Herzberg a s s e r t e d t h a t

such i n d i v i d u a l s show on ly a temporary s a t i s f a c t i o n when

hygiene f o c t o r s a r e improved. According t o him, t h e y

show l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n t h e kind and q u a l i t y of t h e i r

work, t h e y exper ience l i t t l e s a t i s f a c t i o n from accomplish-

ments, dnd they t e n d t o show a ch ron ic d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

w i t h v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of job con tex t - such a s pay,

s t a t u s , and job s e c u r i t y ( ~ e r z b e r g , 1966, p. 90)* This

s i t u a t i o n is l i k e l y t o app ly t o a g r e a t e r number of

Niger ian workers, l n g e n e r a l however, only t h e job

f a c t o r s were p o s t u l a t e d t o be mot iva tors ,

The Nerzberg r e s e a r c h has no t gone unchallenged,

Some ques t i on h i s methods. It is charged t h a t h i s

ques t i on ing methods tended t o p r e j u d i c e h i s r e s u l t s

i in ton, 1968, p. 286). King (1970, p, 18 ) a l s o

q u e s t i o n s Herzbergs t h e o r e t i c a l framework, Llefensive

p roces se s w i th in s tudy s u b j e c t s may have i n f luenced

responses concerning s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .

It i s k.elieved t h a t t h e w e l l known tendency of people

t o r t t t r i > u t e good r e s u l t s t o t h e i r own e f f o r t s and t o

blame o t h e r s f o r poor r e s u l t s must h ~ v e p re jud i ced

Herzberg 's f i n d i n g s ,

Another c r i t i c i s m of t h e Herzberg model i s t h a t

t h e modelts t e n e t s a r e based on r e s e a r c h u s ing a l i m i t e d

s u b j e c t sample (accountan ts and eng inee r s ) , S a t i s f i e r s

and d i s s a t i s f i e r s f o r t h e s e p r o f e s s i o n a l workers may

d i f f e r f o r b lue c o l l a r and o t h e r t y p e s o f workers, I n

a d d i t i o n , t h e Herzberg r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e does no t

i nc lude any s t a t i s t i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e

mot iva tors and t h e a c t u a l job performance. Furthermore,

some s c h o l a r s and r e s e a r c h e r s have commented t h a t t h e

two - f a d t o r exp lana t ion of job s a t i s f a c t i o n is a g r e a t

overs impl i r f i ca t ion of t h e whole mo t iva t i ona l complex

of t h e world of work.

40

A s a t heo ry of mot ivat ion, Herzberg 's i d e a s have

been e f f e c t i v e l y d i s c r e d i t e d on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e

i s no evidence t o suppor t h i s concept of t do independent

s e t s 01 f a c t o r s i n motivdtion. C r iL ic s (such a s Campbell

1970) have claimed t h a t i n an e m p i r i c a l sense , Herzberg 's

work has been concerned more wi th j o t s a t i s f a c t i o n and

d i s s a t i s l ' a c t i o n t h a n Job behaviour , Also, t h e r e s e a r c h e r s

n o t fo l lowing Herzberg 's methods have found t h a t t h e so

c a l l e d hygiene f a c t o r s were a c t u a l l y p o t e n t i n y i e l d i n g

s a t i s f a c t i o n o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( ~ o b b i t t , 1972, p. 24) ,

F i n z l l y , l i k e Maslow, Herzberg has neg lec ted

r e s e z r c h which shows d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s t o work

o f people from d i f l e r e n t c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l - c l a s s

backgrounds ( ~ o r s e , 1955, p, 191).

An i n t e r e s t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of Herzberg l s methods

was made i n t h e r e s e a r c h a t Texas lns t ruments by Dlyers

(1964, p, 73) . Myers s t u d i e d 282 employees of t h i s

f i rm , irlcl.uding s c i e n t i s t s , eng inee r s , s u p e r v i s o r s ,

t e c h n i c i a n s , snd assembly workers. H i s f i n d i n g s on ly

p a r t i a l l y suppor ted Herzberg 's theory. He found t h a t

t h o s e ~ e r s o n s who sought o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r achievement

and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , whom he c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s "growth s e e k e r s N ,

d i d indeed f i t Herzberg 's model i n t h a t t hey were concerned

with s a t i s f i e r s and r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e concerned w i t h

environmental f a c t o r s , t h a t is , I1maintenance" o r "hygieneI1

f a c t o r s . By c o n t r a s t , o t h e r people , whom he c a l l e d

"maintenance seekers I t , were g r e a t l y concerned w i t h

maintenance condi t ions . I n otherwords, what mot ivates

i n d i v i d u a l s was found t o be l a r g e l y a ma t t e r of

p e r s o n a l i t y .

CODlPARISON OF MASLOW IS AND HEIIZBERG IS MODELS

E s s e n t i a l l y , Herzberg t s two f a c t o r model and

Maslowts need h i e r a r chy a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d a s w e l l a s

have s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s worthy of note . Both

t h e o r i e s add re s s human mot iva t ion through ones needs,

While Herzberg hygiene f a c t o r s correspond t o Maslow s

lower l e v e l needs ( p h y s i o l o g i c a l , s a f e t y , s o c i a l ) , t h e

mo t iva t i ona l f a c t o r s s a t i s f y Maslowfs h igh l e v e l needs

(esteem ~ n d s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n ) , See f i g u r e 6,

The key d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e two models a r e a s

fo l lows :

Maslowas model is d e s c r i p t i v e (what i s ) , On t h e

o t h e r hand, Herzberg t s t h e o r y is p r e s c r i p t i v e (what should

be j.

42

I n Maslowts model, a l l needs ( i n c l u d i n g money)

can niotivrite whereas i n Herzberg l s theory , on ly some

i n t r i n s i c needs (exc lud ing money) can motivate.

Maslowts p o s t u l a t i o n t o a g r e a t e x t e n t appears

t o app ly t o a l l people i n a l l t ypes of jobs. ~ e r z b e r ~ k

i s l i k e l y t o be most r e l e v a n t t o whi te c o l l a r and

p r o l e s s i o n a l employees.

F 1 G U l E 6 COMPARISON O F MASLOW ' S AND HLtM3LRG IS

T H l i O R I E S O F M O T I V A T I O N

NiiSLO!l ' S NEED I-IIEIIARCHY

Se l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n

Esteem o r S t a t u s

S o c i a l

S a f e t y needs

P h y s i o l o g i c a l needs

- ---+

+

---+

HERZBEIIG ' S TWO-FACT011 TI-1liOI1Y

Chal lenging work ~ c h i e v e m e n t Growth i n t h e job R e s p o n s i b i l i t y H

Advancement Recogni t ion S t a t u s

I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s E

Company p o l i c y and admin. Q u a l i t y of supe rv i s ion

Q u a n t i t y o f supe rv i s ion Working c o n d i t i o n s Job s e c u r i t y

S a l a r y Pe r sona l l i f e

r

ALDEI@'liii ' S EIIG THEORY

Alderfer (1 972) followed up Maslow I s idea with

some s t u d i e s which l ed him t o propose h i s so c a l l e d ERG

Theory of motivation. He suggested t h a t people 's needs

a r e arranged along a continum, r a t h e r than i n a h ierarchy)

and t h a t the re a r e t h r e e , r a t h e r than f i v e l e v e l s of need

- Lxistence, Itelatedness and Growth, Alderfer 1s theory

i s s i m i l a r t o Maslowts except t h a t it condenses Maslow's

h ierarchy i n t o t h r e e ca tegor ies s t a t e d above,

Existence needs include those d e s i r e s t h a t meet

Maslowls lower - order needs, i , e . phys io logica l and

s a f e t y needs. Relatedness needs encompass in te rpe r sona l

r e l a t i o n s h i p s and include t h e acceptance, belonging and

o t h e r s o c i a l needs, This d i v i s i o n of Alde r fe r l s model

p a r a l l e l s Ivlaslow's s o c i a l needs bu't s l i g h t l y overlaps

with h i s s a f e t y and s e l f - esteem leve l s . Growth needs

include those t h a t challenge the ind iv idua l s c a p a b i l i t i e s

and 11-~sy cause personal growth on the joS, Included here

a r c esteem ~ n d s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t needs found i n l e v e l s

four and l i v e of Maslowfs model,

The Existence, Relatedness and Growth (ERG) model

r e s t s on th ree suppos i t ions ( ~ e r t h e r , 1985 p. 401 ),

F i r s t , t h e l e s s t h e need i s s a t i s f i e d , t h e s t r o n g e r

t h e d e s i r e f o r t h a t need, Secondly, t h e s t r e n g t h of

d e s i r e f o r h igher - l e v e l needs goes up t h e more lower

l e v e l needs a r e s a t i s f i e d , F i n a l l y , t h e more f r u s t r a t i o n

one X h d s i n meeting h ighe r l e v e l needs, t h e more lower

l e v e l needs w i l l >c des i red .

t i comlon element i n bo th Iviaslowts and h l d e r f e r t s

models i s t h a t people have needs, wi th each need

vhryin: i n i t s i n t e n s i t y depending on how w e l l i t

end o t h t r ritccls a r e kteing sh-Lisf ied. S i g n i f i c a n t

d i l f e r e n c e s a l s o e x i s t , Unlike Maslow's t heo ry which

i s bused on a progress ion of s a t i s f a c t i o n up t h e

h i e r a rchy , A lde r f e r 1s ERG model i nc lude a f r u s t r a t i o n -

r e g r e s s i o n view point . In c i rcumstances where h igher -

o r d e r needs remain u n s a t i s f i e d , f r u s t r a t i o n occurs

and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' I regresses t o f u l f i l l i n g more b a s i c

needs, i i l so , k l d e r f e r 's model is more dynamic than

Maslowts. It acknowledges t h a t more than one need may

be o p e r a t i v e a t any one t ime, con t r a ry t o Maslow's.

It a l lows f o r people t o dea l wi th two s e t s of needs

a t once, F i n a l l y , it (ERG) d i s t i n g u i s h e s between ch ron ic

o r long l a s t i n g needs, and e p i s o d i c o r occas iona l needs,

Mcgregor (1960) desc r ibed two s e t s of c o n t r a s t i n g

va lues atlout t he n a t u r e of people ; one he c a l l e d

Theory X 2nd t h e o t h e r Theory Y,

Theory X o u t l i n e s t r a d i t i o n a l va lues and assumptions

about human behaviour t h a t a r e i n h e r i t e d from t h e

i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n and a r e o f t e n heard i n c o n v e r s a t i o n

between managers even today. Mcgregor (1960 p. 33) gave

t heo ry X assumptions a s fo l lows :

1, The average human being has an i nhe ren t

d i s l i k e of bork and w i l l avoid it i f he

cun.

2. Because of t h i s human c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of

d i s l i k e of work, most people must be

coerced, c o n t r o l l e d , d i r e c t e d , o r t h r ea t ened

wi th punishment t o g e t them t o pu t f o r t h

adequate e f f o r t toward t h e achievement of

o r g a n i s a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s .

3. The average human being p r e f e r s t o be d i r e c t e d ,

wish t o avo id r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , ha s r e l a t i v e l y

l i t t l e ambi t ion, and want s e c u r i t y above a l l ,

Because of t h e s e assumptions, management p l ays

herd on ~ m y l o y ~ e s . The s u p t r i o r assumes t h a t h i s

s ~ t ~ o r d i n n t e s d i s l i k e work and must be fo rced t o pu t

f o r t h e f f o r t , hence he t ends t o t a k e a d i r e c t i v e and

a u t h o r i t a r i a n r o l e i n t h e g o a l s e t t i n g process.

S i m i l a r l y , p l ans o r i g i n a t e on t h e upper l e v e l s of t h e

organiz:? t i o n . nd a r e t r s n s m i t t e d downward. Leadership

t ends t o ?je a u t o c r a t i c whi le con~municclition flow i s one

way, I'rom t o p down wi th a l i t t l e feedback. Furthermore,

due t o l i n i t e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r subo rd ina t e s t o

p a r t i c i p a t e i n g o a l s e t t i n g and a c t i o n planning, t h e r e

i s low conirnitment t o o b j e c t i v e s and plans . The

r e s u l t i n g o rgan iza t i on , a s a consequence of t h e s e

assumptions, f o l l ows what i s sometimes c a l l e d t h e

account ing model of o rgan iza t i on , s e t up t o d e t e c t and

c o r r e c t e r r o r .

However, t h e f i n d i n g s which a r e beginning t o emerge

from t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s cha l l enge t h i s whole s e t of

b c l i e f s aklout man bnd human na tu re ( ~ h r u d e n , 1976, p. 187).

I t comes from t h e l a b o r a t o r y , t h e c l i n i c , t h e s choo l

room e t c . Although s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s do no t deny

a b s o l u t e l y t h a t human behaviour i n i n d u s t r i a l organiza-

t i o n s today may no t be t o o f a r from what management

perce ived employees under Theory A, they be l i eve s t r o n g l y

t h a t workers1 nega t ive behaviour i s n o t a consequence of

man's i n h e r e n t n a t u r e a s proposed >y Theory X. Ra ther

i t i s a consequence of t h e n a t u r e of i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

management philosophy, p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e . dhen man's

needs a r e thwarted, he behaves i n ways which tend t o

d e f e a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l olrl j e c t i v e s , He kecomes r e s i s t a n t ,

uncoopera t ive , and a n t a g o n i s t i c , But t h i s behaviour i s a

constquence, n o t a cause, There fore t h e convent iona l

a p p r o ~ c h o f Theory X is based on mistaken n o t i o n s of

what i s cause and what i s e f f e c t . Other c r i t i c i s m s of

t h i s approach inc lude c o n f r o n t a t i o n t h a t may a r i s e .

Force $reeds coun te r fo rce and t h i s coun te r f o r c e r e s u l t s

i n r e s t r i c t i o n of ou tpu t , antagonism, m i l i t a n t unionism

and s u 5 t l e b u t e f f e c t i v e sabo tage of management's

olr l ject ivus.

11s a r e s u l t o f t h e unfavourable e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d

wi th Theory X ( a s s t a t e d above) a d i f f e r e n t approach

t o t h e t a s k of managing and mot iva t ing people based on

more adequate assumptions about human na tu re emerged.

This approach, known a s Theory Y, focuses p r i m a r i l y

on c r e a t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s , r e l e a s i n g p o t e n t i a l s ,

removing o b s t a c l e s , encouraging growth and p rov id ing

guidance. Theory Y i s based on t h e fo l l owing assumptions

(McGregor, 1960, p. 47).

1. The expendi tu re o f p h y s i c a l and mental

e f f o r t i s a s n a t u r a l a s p l a y o r r e s t .

The average human k i n g does n o t i n h e r e n t l y

d i s l i k e work. Uepending upon con . t ro l l ab l e

cond i t i ons , work may be a source of s a t i s -

f a c t i o n (and w i l l be v o l u n t a r i l y performed)

o r a source of punishment (and w i l l be

avoided i f p o s s i b l e ) ,

2. E x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and t h e t h r e a t of punishment

a r e n o t t h e only means f o r b r ing ing about

e f f o r t toward o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ' o b j e c t i v e s .

People w i l l e x e r c i s e s e l f - d i r e c t i o n and

s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t h e s e r v i c e of o b j e c t i v e s

t o which t h e y a r e committed.

3. Commitment t o ob j ec - t i ve s is a f u n c t i o n 01' t h e

rewards a s s o c i a t e d w i th t h e i r achievement,

4. The average human keing l e a r n s , under p roper

cond i t i ons , n o t on ly t o accep t but a l s o t o

s eek r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , Avoidance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

l a c k of ambi t ion and emphasis on s e c u r i t y a r e

g e n e r a l l y consequences of exper ience , n o t

i n h e r e n t human c h a r a c t e s j . s t i c s -

49

5. The c a p a c i t y t o e x e r c i s e a r e l a t i v e l y h igh

degree of immagination, i ngenu i ty , and

c r e a t i v i t y i n t h e s o l u t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

p rob len~s is widely, no t narrowly, d i s t r i b u t e d

i n t h e popula t ion .

6. Under t h e c o n d i t i o n s of modern i n d u s t r i a l l i f e ,

t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l i t i e s of t h e average

human keing a r e only p a r t i a l l y u t i l i z e d .

AS rl, r e s u l t of t h e s e assumptions about t h e human

n a t u r e , the re i s a g r e a t d e a l of subo rd ina t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n

i n s e t t i n g ~ o a l s and deve lop ing p l a n s f o r t h e i r achievement,

Moreover, a l t e r n a t i v e p l ans a r e a l s o explored and

eva lua ted . Because of employees a c t i v e involvement i n

manager ia l p rocess , t hey a r e committed t o cha l l eng ing

and r e a l i s t i c g o a l s a s w e l l a s h igh performance.

Under Theory Y , l e a d e r s h i p i s p a r t i c i p a t i v e , f l e x i b l e ,

and a d a p t i v e t o t h e needs of t h e p a r t i c u l a r e n t e r p r i s e .

People seek r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and f e e l accountab le f o r

r e s u l t s . Communication f lows s e v e r a l ways: downwards,

upwards a s w e l l a s c rosswise . Frequent feedback prov ides

f o r a ccuracy of t r a n s m i t t e d informat ion. Cont ro l i s

i n t e r n a l and p r i m a r i l y s e l f - c o n t r o l . Subord ina tes

s e t s t a n d a r d s j o i n t l y wi th s u p e r i o r s and s t r i c t l y work

towards t h e a t t a inmen t of such s t a n d a r d s , which a r e

a d j u s t e d on ly if env i ronn~en ta l changes demand i t , f o r

example due t o obsolescence, The a p p r a i s a l of performance

i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t r u s t , l e a r n i n g and focuses on f u t u r e

improvement r a t h e r t han t o judge. Thus Theory Y opens

t h e door t o mo t iva t i ona l t e chn iques t h a t a r e precluded

by socio-psychological r e s t r a i n t s imposed by Theory X

(Albers , 1961, p, 5 3 4 ) ,

McGregor c i t e s d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and d e l e g a t i o n ,

job enlargement, p a r t i c i p a t i o n and c o n s u l t a t i v e manage-

ment and performance a p p r a i s a l a s s t e p s i n t h e r i g h t

d i r e c t i o n towards app ly ing Theory Y, P a r t i c i p a t i v e and

c o n s u l t a t i v e management provide encouragement t o people

t o d i r e c t t h e i r c r e a t i v e e n e r g i e s towards o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

o b j e c t i v e s a s w e l l a s provide s i g n i f i c a n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s

f o r the s a t i s f a c t i o n .of s o c i a l and e g o i s t i c needs, f o r

example the Scanlon plan.

The major c r i t i c i s m of Theory Y i s t h a t it l e a d s

f r e q u e n t l y t o t he a b d i c a t i o n of management i n t o harmony,

and perh5ps t o i n d i f f e r e n t performance, Employees

c o n t i n u a l l y expec t more, b u t g ive l e s s and l e s s ,

COMPARISON OF THEORY X AND THEORY Y

Koontz e t a 1 (1980, p. 618) used s e l e c t e d key

managerial a c t i v i t i e s - namely

(a) ob jec t ive s e t t i n g and developing p lans

t o achieve them;

(b) p lan implementation through leadership ;

and

( c ) c o n t r o l l i n g and performance a p p r a i s a l - t o compare t h e e f f e c t s of Theory X and Theory Y

on managerial a c t i o n s , a s shown i n the t a b l e below:

Key mqnqpjerial 1r.t.1 v-l .v

( i ) Planning ( i nc lud ing s e t t i n g o b j e c t i v e s )

( i i ) Leading

( i i i ) C o n t r o l l i n g and

Appraisa l

Theorv X

assumes t h a t t h e pe r sona l g o a l s o f employees a r e incompat ible wi th o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ~ b j e c t i v e s . s u p e r i o r s e t s 0 3 j e c t i v e s f o r subo rd ina t e s wi th l i t t l e o r no p a r t i c i p a t i o n by them,

There is low commitment t o o b j e c t i v e s and p l ans

Few a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e explored

Leadership i s a u t o c r a t i c , based on a u t h o r i t y only

People fo l low o r d e r s , bu t hidden r e s i s t a n c e and m i s t r u s t e x i s t s

Sees employees a s l a z y , i ndo len t and have no th ing t o o f f e r t h e o rgan i - z a t i o n

Communication i.s one way, from top down wi th l i t t l e feedSack. In fo r - mation f low i s l imi t ed .

Focus i s on t h e pas t . There i s low t r u s t i n a p p r a i s a l

Theorv Y

s e e s employees a s p a r t n e r s i n p rog re s s w i th pe r sona l g o a l s compatible wi th o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s

s u p e r i o r and subor- d i n a t e s s e t o h j e c t j v e s j o i n t l y wi th a g r e a t d e a l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n by subo rd ina t e s

There is h igh commitment t o o b j e c t i v e s and p l ans

Many a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e explored.

Leadersh.i.p is p a r t i c i p a t i v e , and team work i s based on competence

People seek r e spons ib i - l i t y , f e e l accountab le and a r e committed t o performance.

a t t emp t s t o t a k e f u l l advantage of t h e pe r sona l and profe- s s i o n a l p o t e n t i a l of employees,

Commun.icatj.on is two-way wi th a g r e a t d e a l o f feedback, Necessary informat ion f lows f r e e l y . I

i

Focus is on t h e f u t u r e . There is h igh t r u s t i n a p p r a i s a l .

2.2.2 PROCESS MOUELS

Process models, a s opposed t o c o n t e n t models,

focus on t h e behaviour. They a t t emp t t o desc r ibe and

e x p l a i n t h e mot iva t ion p roces s , t h a t i s , how behaviour

is energ ized , d i r e c t e d , s u s t a i n e d and stopped. hxponents

o f t h i s approach inc lude V ic to r Vroom, P o r t e r and Lawler,

and 13. 1;'. Skinner.

EXPECTANCY MODEL 01: MOTIVi\ ' l ' ION

Another approach t o e x p l a i n i n g mot ivdt ion and one

t h z t many b e l i e v e has g r e a t p o t e n t i a l f o r unders tand ing

and p r a c t i c e may be r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e %xpectancy

model 'I. Expectancy T h e o r i s t s room, P o r t e r & Lawler

e t c . ) r a t h e r t han a t t emp t ing t o c l a s s i f y and l a b e l

f a c t o r s which i n f luence worker behaviour focused

e x c l u s i v e l y on examining t h e p roces s of mot ivat ion,

by s p e c i f y i n g how o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t

with i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s t o i n f luence a worker t o

behave i n a c e r t a i n manner. Expectancy model d e f i n e s

mo t iva t i on a s a p rocess governing choices . The

e s s e n t i a l element of t h i s model i s t h a t people w i l l

be motivated t o do t h i n g s t o ach ieve some goa l t o t h e

54

e x t e n t t h a t they expec t t h s t c e r t a i n a c t i o n s on

t h e i r p a r t w i l l h e lp them ach ieve t h e goa l , I n t h e

words of Donelly (1984 p, 208), expectancy model a s s e r t s

t h a t mot ivat ion (work e f f o r t ) w i l l occur i f t h e i n d i v i d u a l

v a l u e s t h e r e s p e c t i v e reward and be l i eve t h a t h i s / h e r

e f f o r t w i l l achieve a performance l e v e l which i n t u r n

w i l l r c s u l t i n o b t a i n i n g t h e rewards, The expectancy

model. i s shown i n t h e diagram on f i g u r e 7.

Two major models of mot ivat ion based on expectancy

a r e th ; l t advanced by Vic tor Vroom, and t h e P o r t e r and

Lawler model,

FIGURE 7 EXPECTANCY MODEL

. Performance Outcomes : Hewards

e f i 'o r t t o l e v e l . o r perform Punishments

't

Expectancy I n s t r u m e n t a l i t y

VKOOM'S EXPbCTANCY - VALENCE M O W L

Attack ing Herzbergls two - f a c t o r model and r e s e a r c h

ns be ing t o o dependent on t h e c o n t e n t and c o n t e x t o f t h e

work r o l e s of t h e people k~eing ques t ioned , Vroom o f f e r e d

a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d view of mot iva t ion : t he expectancy

- valence theory. Vroom (1964), i n a n i n f l u e n t i a l work

focused h i s a t t e n t i o n on i n d i v i d u a l behaviour- i n t h e

work p lace . He observed t h e work behaviour of i n d i v i d u a l s

w i t h t h e o b j e c t of e x p l a i n i n g t h e p roces se s involved.

H e assumed t h a t much of t h e behaviour observed would be

mot ivated, i .e. , t h a t it was t h e r e s u l t of p r e f e r ences

among p o s s i b l e outcomes and e x p e c t a t i o n s concerning t h e

consequences o f a c t i o n s . Consequently, he used t h e

concept of valence t o d e s c r i b e t h e s t a t e i n which people

exp re s s p r e f e r ences between outcomes. Vroom sug&es t s t h a t

mot iva t ion i s a f u n c t i o n of two key v a r i a b l e s , namely,

t h e persons pe rcep t ion of t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e outcomes

o f a kiven behaviour (va l ence ) and t h e perce ived

p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e s e outcomes w i l l be forthcoming

(expectancy) , I n otherwords, a persons mot iva t ion

toward an a c t i o n a t any t ime would be determined by h i s

o r he r a n t i c i p a t e d va lues of a l l t h e outcornes (bo th

nega t ive and p o s i t i v e ) and t h e s t r e n g t h of t h a t p e r s o n ' s

expectancy t h a t t h e outcome would y i e l d t h e d e s i r e d

goa l . If an employee i s c e r t a i n t h a t an a c t has no

chance t o l e a d t o a n outcome, t h e n expectancy i s zero ,

A t t h e oppos i t e end o f t h e s c a l e , i f a n employee i s

s u r e t h a t a n a c t w i l l l e a d t o a n outcome, t hen expectancy

i s +I . Therefore expectancy may range anywhere from

0 t o +I; while va lence may range from -1 t o +I, An

outconie i s negatively v a l e n t when t h e person p r e f e r s

n o t r? . t t a in ing it t o a t t a i n i n g it, has a ze ro valence

when t h e person i s i n d i f f e r e n t t o a t t a i n i n g o r no t

a t t a i n i n g it, and i s p o s i t i v e l y v a l e n t when he p r e f e r s

a t t a i n i n g it t o n o t a t t a i n i n g it. According t o Vroom,

i n d i v i d u a l s add up t h e p ros and cons of v a r i o u s outcomes

a s weighted by t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t each w i l l occur and

t h e n a c t i n a manner which w i l l p rov ide t h e g r e a t e s t

pay-oPf. In simple and s t r a i g h t forward terms, expectancy - va lence model sugges t s t h a t i f a person wants something

stroni; ly enough, and i f t h e p a t h looks s u f I i c i e n t l y open

t o ~ e t it, t h a t person w i l l go f o r it. People use t h e i r \

expe r i ence and judgement t o determine which k inds of

d e s i r e d outcomes a r e a v a i l a k l e , and then judge which ones

t h e y have t h e b e s t p r o b a b i l i t y o f reaching. What t hey

57

perform i s a type of c o s t - k n e f i t a n a l y s i s t o

determina whether a reward is worth i t s c o s t s . If

t h e reward i s e n o u ~ h t o j u s t i f y t h e c o s t of more

e f f o r t , t hen t hey tend t o go f o r it. Vroorn p r e s e n t s

t h i s t heo ry i n a mathematical model a s fo l lows :

where Fi = t h e f o r c e t o perform a c t i

= t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e expectancy t h a t a c t i

w i l l ke fol lowed by outcome j.

= t h e valence of outcome j

= t h e number of outcomes.

Vroorn (19G4 p. 18) i n t e r p r e t e s t h i s model a s " the

f o r c e on a person t o perform a n a c t is a monotonical ly

incr .easind func t ion of t h e a l g e b r a i c sum of t h e p roduc t s

o f t h e valence of a l l outcomes and t h e s t r e n g t h of h i s

expec t cnc i e s t h a t t h e a c t w i l l be fol lowed by t h e

a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e s e outcomesN.

One of t h e g r e a t a t t r a c t i o n s of t h e Vroom theo ry

is t h a t it recognizes t h e importance of var ious i n d i v i d u a l

needs arid mot iva t ions ( ~ o o n t z , 1980, p. 6 4 4 ) , It t h u s

avo ids sonre of t h e s i m p l i s t i c f e a t u r e s 01 t h e Maslow

and Herzberg approaches, Also, it does seem more

r e a l i s t i c and f i t s t h e concept of harmony of o b j e c t i v e s

of t h e pe r sona l g o a l s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

goa l s . Furthermore, Vroomls t h e o r y is complete ly cons i s -

t e n t 18lith t h e e n t i r e system of managing by o b j e c t i v e s ,

Other p o i n t s t o i t s c r e d i t i nc lude : F i r s t l y , i t i s

a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e work environment b u t f o r i t s complexity,

Secondly, it adds i n s i g h t i n t o cho ices , expectancy, and

p re fe r ences , F i n a l l y , t h e n~a thema t i ca l l y model i s

appea l ing of i t s appa ren t p r e c i s i o n and s c i e n t i f i c

c r e d i b i l i t y ,

ii c r i t i c i s m of t h e model is i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y f o r

use by personne l p r o f e s s i o n a l s . By f a r it is one of t h e

most complex motiv: . : t ion t heo ry which p r e s e n t s problems

i n i t s t e s t i n g and a p p l i c a t i o n . Only few personne l

p r a c t i t i o n e r s can app ly t h i s model t o every day motiva-

t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s . Complementing t h e c r i t i c i s m on t h e

models complexity, OIBrien and Dickson (1972, p. 1 0 )

s t a t e s t h a t t h e foreman t r y i n g t o p r e d i c t t h e behaviour

of h i s workers would be r e q u i r e d t o s i t f o r hours wi th

h i s c a l c u l a t o r o r e l s e be a n e x p e r t i n computer technology,

i f he was going t o use Vroomls approach.

Secondly, t h e v a r i a b l e s i n Vroomls formula cannot

be observed, measured o r q u a n t i f i e d . Vroom has t aken

u p r e c i s e mathematical t o o l and a p p l i e d it t o t h e

imprecise . Thus problems of measuring p re f e r ences ,

expectancy and e f f o r t a r i s e .

THE PORTER AND LAWLER MODEL

Vroomls ideas have been pursued by numerous o t h e r

t h e o r i s t s ( i n p a r t i c u l a r P o r t e r and Lawler) t o t h e

e x t e n t t h a t i n a r e c e n t review of mot iva t ion t heo ry ,

Guest (1904, p. 21 ) concluded t h a t I1expectancy t h e o r y

c o n t i n u e s t o provide t h e dorminant framework f o r

unders tand ing mot ivat ion a t workI1.

P o r t e r and Lawler (1968) i n extending Vroomls i deas

have der ived a s u b s t a n t i a l l y more complete model o f

rnotiv2t;ion and have a p p l i e d it i n t h e i r s tudy primari1.y

on managers. The model a t t e m p t s t o add re s s two major

i s s u e s :

One, what f a c t o r s determine t h e e f f o r t a person

p u t s i n t o h i s job?

Two, ll.rhat f a c t o r s a f f e c t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

e f f o r t and performance?

The v a r i a b l e s s e l e c t e d by them ( p o r t e r and h w l e r )

were e f f o r t , t h e va lue of rewards, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t

rewards depend on e f f o r t , p e r f o r m n c e , a b i l i t i e s and r o l e

percep t ions . They opined t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s performance

i s in f luenced n o t only Sy t h e perce ived valences o f

outcon~e; and t h e perce ived p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e outcomes

w i l l f o l l ow a behaviour, b u t a l s o by an i n d i v i d u a l s

ak , i l i l ; i e s , t r a i t s , m d r o l e percep t ions . They d i s t i n g u i s h e d

between a n i n d i v i d u a l s e f f o r t t o perform an a c t and

t h e s u c c e s s f u l performance of t h e a c t i t s e l f , emphasizing

t h a t t f f o r t does no t n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t i n s u c c e s s f u l

perforimnco. In a d d i t i o n , performance i s in f luenced by

how t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f i n e s t h e job o r h i s r o l e pe rcep t ion ,

Thus if' 2 worker pe rce ives h i s job d i f f e r e n t l y from h i s

s u p e r i o r , t h e employee may expend a g r e a t d e a l o f e f f o r t

t h a t i s misd i rec ted , and consequent ly performs poo r ly

from t h e s u p e r i o r s viewpoint . I n essence , P o r t e r and

Lawler main ta in t h a t i f an i n d i v i d u a l i s t o perform a

job e f f e c t i v e l y , he must have a n a c c u r a t e concept of

what h i s job is, and t h e s b i l i t i e s and t r a i t s t h a t a r e

r e c y i r e d t o perform t h e job, Also, he must pe rce ive

a h igh p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t h i s e f f o r t s w i l l l e a d t o

s p e c i f i c , p r e d i c t a b l e outcomes and b e l i e v e t h a t t h e

p o s i t i v e outcomes w i l l outweigh the nega t ive outcomes.

Perfor t~l tnce , i n t u r n , i s s een a s l e a d i n g to " i n t r i n s i c

rewardsu (such a s a sense of accomplishment o r s e l f -

a c t u a l i z a t i o n ) and t l e x t r i n s i c (such a s working

c o n d i t i o n s and s t a t u s ) . These, a s tempered by what t h e

i n d i v i d u a l pe rce ives a s I t equ i tab le rewardsv, l e ad t o

" s a t i s f a c t ionI t , See f i g u r e 8, Furthermore, P o r t e r

and Lawler l s mot ivat ion model main ta ins t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l s

behaviour is in f luenced bjB s u b j e c t i v e f e e l i n g s (va l ences )

abou t t h e outcomes t h a t w i l l fo l low a bshaviour, Since

an i n d i v i c l u ~ l ' s f e e l i n g s about an outcome cdnnot be

d i r e c t l y observed, t h e s e f e c l i n g s m u s t be i n f e r r e d

from p s t lxhav iour ,

A r m t h e r niil j o r component o f P o r t e r and Lawler I s

model is an i n d i v i d u i l ' s pe rce ived p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t

c e r t a i n outcomes w i l l I o l l ow c e r t a i n Sehaviours. The

perce ived p r o b a b i l i t y can only be developed through

p r i o r a s s o c i a t i o n of t h e response and t h e outcome o r

outcomes. Therefore , it i s e a s i e r t o measure t h i s

a s s o c i a t i o n d i r e c t l y t han t o r e f e r t o t h e concept o f

perce ived p r o b a b i l i t y ,

FIG

UR

E 8

TH

E

PO

RT

ER

A

ND

L

AW

LE

R

MO

TIV

AT

ION

M

OD

EL

rewa

rds

Ab

ility to

d

o a

s

pe

cifie

d

I tas

k

I

>

pe

rc

eiv

ed

e

qu

itab

le

re

wa

rd

s

I

effo

rt -

pr

ob

ab

il i ty

Pe

rc

ep

t ion

re

qu

ire

d

SO

UR

CE

:- a

na

ag

e rial

Attitu

de

an

d

Pe

rfo

rm

an

ce

.

P o r t e r and Lawler main ta in t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l must

pe rce ive a h ikh p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t h i s e f f o r t s w i l l r e s u l t

i n a klehaviour t h a t l e a d s t o p o s i t i v e outcomes. Whether

o r no t t h i s e f f o r t r e s u 1 . t ~ i n a p p r o p r i a t e behnviour

depends on a n i n d i v i d u a l s a b i l i t i e s , t r a i t s and r o l e

percep t ions . A pe rson ' s r o l e p e r c e p t i o n i s based on the

feedback he has rece ived f o r p r i o r responses , and t h e

responses t h a t have Seen r e i n f o r c e d w i l l ke I1perceivedu

a s app rop r i a t e .

!$kile a s u p e r i o r , s ay a manager, cannot d i r e c t l y a l t e r

a p e r s o n ' s r o l e pe rcep t ion , he can a l t e r t h e consequences

t h a t fo l low t h e response.

F i n a l l y , P o r t e r and Lawler ls performance model

r e f u t e s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l no t ion t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n causes

kood perfornlance, which h a s long plagued i n d u s t r i a l

psychology. Ins tead , t h e y sugges t t h a t i f good

performance r e s u l t s i n t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f e q u i t a b l e and

d e s i r e d r e k a r d s , t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e d e s i r e d rewards

causes sa-1;isfaction. The key v a r i a b l e I'or both good

performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n i s t h e r e c e i p t o f d e s i r e d

rewards. . I n a s i m i l a r ve in , s a t i s f a c t i o n i t s e l l : depends

upon the rewards r ece ived and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n

of whether t h e rewards a r e f a i r compensation f o r t h e

performance. This p e r c e p t i o n a f f e c t s t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s

expectancy, t h a t is, t h e b e l i e f t h a t f u t u r e performance

w i l l r e s u l t i n rewards.

The P o r t e r and Lawler model i s c e r t a i n l y a more

adequatt: p o r t r a y a l o f t h e system o f mot ivat ion. The

impl ic i? t ion of t h i s model f o r p r a t i c e , accord ing t o

Koontz (1980, p. 643) is t h a t management should ca re -

f u l l y a s s e s s t h e i r reward s t r u c t u r e and t h a t through

c s r e f u l p lanning, managing by o b j e c t i v e s , and c l e a r

d e f i n i t i o n of d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , t h e e f f o r t

- perforn~ance-reward - s a t i s f a c t i o n system should be

i n t e g r a t e d i n t o an e n t i r e system of managing.

EQUITY THEORY

Another r e c e n t mot iva t ion t heo ry i s Equi ty o r

S o c i a l Comparison Theory.

Although needs o r i e n t e d t h e o r i e s may e x p l a i n what

f a c t o r s mot ivate employees, they o f f e r only a l i t t l e

i n s i g h t a s t o why people behave a s they do. Hence,

s e v e r a l t h e o r i e s have been independent ly advanced

proposing t h a t erriployees seek a j u s t o r e q u i t a b l e

r e t u r n f o r what they have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t he job

( s e e Hornans, 1961; Patchen, 1961; Adams 1963). A

conirilon f e a t u r e of t h e s e t h e o r i e s i s t h e assumption t h a t

compens:ition e i t h e r atqove o r below t h a t which is pe rce ived

by t h e employee t o be l t equ i ta t t l e l l r e s u l t s i n t e n s i o n

and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n due t o d i s s o n a n t cogn i t i ons . The

t e n s i o n , i n t u r n , causes t h e employee t o a t t empt t o

r e s t o r e consonance by a v a r i e t y of t e ehav iou ra l o r c o g n i t i v e

methods. I n suppor t of t h i s , Adams e t a 1 (1964 p. 9 )

found t h a t i f employees thought t h a t t hey were t r e a t e d

equil;at. ly, t h e i r work e f f o r t was s u s t a i n e d ; i f they

thou1,ht they were no t being t r e a t e d e q u i t a b l y i n r e l a t i o n

t o o t h e r comparable employees, t h e n t h e i r e f f o r t d e c l i n e s ,

Thus i n a d d i t i o n t o being rewarded f o r t h e i r performance,

peoplc a l s o want t h o s e rewards t o be f a i r r e l a t i v e t o

what o t h e r s r ece ive . This necd f o r f a i r treatment i s

t h e t,:-tsis 01 e q u i t y t h to ry .

Equi ty theory a rgues t h a t a l l of u s compare our

i n p u t s ( o r e f f o r t ) wi th our outcomes ( o r rewards)

r e l ~ t i v e Lo o t h e r pe r son ' s w i t h i n ou r o rgan iza t ion .

If t h e ratio of i n ; u t s t o outcomes is equa l , t h e n we

exper ience n f e e l i n g of e q u i t y ( C a r r e l l , 1978, p, 2 0 2 ) ,

Thus e q u i t y is f e l t when:

where 0 = Outcomes

I = Inputs

I: = Person

a = comparison person, most commonly a co-worker,

$/hen rewards a r e pcrce ivcd a s i n s u f f i c i e n t e i t h e r

more re1:;ards a r e sought o r l e s s e f f o r t i s p u t f o r t h .

These i s s u e s a r e most l i k e l y t o u r i s e through comparisons

wi th o t h e r people i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r wi th people who

do s i r n i l z r work o u t s i d e t h e o rgan iza t i on . When an employee

co:opures h i s o r h e r job i n p u t s (performance, e f f o r t , s k i l l s ,

o r c d u c ; ~ t i o n ) with those of a n o t h e r person, t h e worker

u s u a l l y I e e l s t h a t cornparable i n p u t s should have

cornparakqle r e s u l t s . If t h e o t h e r person r e c e i v e s

more pay , r e c o g n i t i o n , s t a t u s , promotion, o r o t h e r

f a v o u r u t ~ l e outcomes wi th no more i n p u t s , t h e s i t u a t i o n

i s s e e n t~ t e i n e q u i t a k l e , I nequ i ty can be exper ienced

i n two forms: F i r s t , one could f e e l over - rewarded

r e l a t i v e t o t h e comparison person a s shown i n equa t ion

below:

0, %,- -- I

P a

More coinmonly however, one f e e l s under-rewarded when

comparcd t o someone e l s e a s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e equa t ion

below :

I n both ca se s , e q u i t y t heo ry s t a t e s t h a t i n e q u i t y i s an

uncomfor ta i , le cond i t i on t h a t w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e person

t a k i n g somL a c t i o n . The o b j e c t i v e o f t h e a c t i o n w i l l

be t o c r e a t e o r r e s t o r e a c o n d i t i o n of perce ived e q u i t y

( ~ i c k s , 1376, p. 462). When i n e q u i t y e x i s t s between

i n p u t s and outcomes, t he person i s motivated t o reduce

t h e i n e q u i t y by o b t a i n i n g an i n c r e a s e i n the rewards

( a r a i s e o r a promotion) o r by dec reas ing t h e i n p u t s

(by t , e ing l e s s p roduc t ive ) o r some comt:lination of both ,

This theory of e f y i t y has a n i m p l i c a t i o n f o r

pe r sonne l p r o f e s s i o n a l s , I t does emphasize t h e need

t o s c r u t i n i z e d i l i g m t l y a n o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s reward

s t x u c t u r e t o ensure e q u i t y , Otherwise, i n e q u i t i e s may

l e a d t o reduced performance, absenteeism, h igh l abour

t u r n o v e r o r i n d u s t r i a l a c t i o n s .

68

B L H A V I O U R D' IOUIFICATION MODEL

Behaviour mod i f i ca t i on ( a l s o known a s p o s i t i v e

re in forcement o r operan t condt ion ing) a s it i s o f t e n

c a l l e d , i s a l a t e comer t o t h e f i e l d of mo t iva t i ona l

approaches used i n indus t ry . E a r l i e r motiva ' t ional

t h e o r i e s ( c o g n i t i v e models) concerned themselves wi th

t h e psycholog ica l person and how t h a t person views

t h e world. But Skinner (1969) a s s e r t t h a t behaviour

i s c a s e d p r i m a r i l y by e x t e r n a l l y induced s t i m u l i , hence

he urged behavioural s c i e n t i s t s t o g i v e up t h e i r emphasis

upon t h e i n n e r l i f e of man and upon f r e e - w i l l . Rather,

t h e y should concen t r a t e upon r e l a t i o n s between man and

h i s environment. While c o g n i t i v e models s t a t e d above

argue t h a t i n t e r n a l needs l e a d t o behaviour, behaviour

rnodiIiccl-tion s t a t e s t h a t e x t e r n a l consequences t e n d t o

de te rmine behaviour,

E s s e n t i a l l y behaviour mod i f i ca t i on is based on a

fundamental concept of l e a r n i n g theory . This very b a s i c

idea i s t h a t behaviour t h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e i n f o r c e d

t e n d s t o t1e r epea t ed whi le behaviour t h a t is n o t

r e i n f o r c e d o r i s punished t e n d s n o t t o be r epea t ed

( ~ u l l e t , 1975, p. 206), Persons w i l l t a k e t hose a c t i o n s

69

t h a t l e a d t o t h e rewards t hey want and w i l l s t o p doing

t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t r e s u l t i n e i t h e r no rewards o r

punishment. I n t h e words o f Skinner , Sehaviour is a

f u n c t i o n of t h e re in forcements provided by t h e environ-

ment, hence work behaviour can be c o n t r o l l e d by

manipu la t ing t h e consequences which fo l l ow t h e

t ehav iou r , c a l l e d operan t condi t ion ing . Norkers a r e

l i k e l y t o r e p e a t behaviour t h a t r e s u l t s i n a p l e a s i n g

outcome - f o r example a reward - and no t r e p e a t

behaviour t h a t r e s u l t s i n a n unpleasan t outcome (such

a s punishment),

E x t e r n a l behaviour is t h e on ly d i r e c t l y boservable

p a r t of a n i n d i v i d u a l , and t h i s behaviour is t h e c e n t r a l

focus of ope ran t cond i t i on ing . I f a reward i n c r e a s e s t h e

d e s i r e d behiiviour, it can be c a l l e d a r e i n f o r c e r . By

r e i n f o r c e r , we mean something t h a t i n c r e a s e t h e

p r o b a b i l i t y of a behaviour occu r r ing again. It s e r v e s

as o reward o r i n c e n t i v e t o behave i n a c e r t a i n way.

Re in fo rce r s may be t a n g i b l e l i k e food o r money and c a n

a l s o be i n t a n g i b l e l i k e p r a i s e and approval .

A key t o t h i s b e t t e r behaviour is i n making t h e

re in forcement dependent upon t h e d e s i r e d behaviour.

A s w i t h t h e expectancy model, a pe r son must r e c e i v e a

re inforcement a s a r e s u l t of a . d e s i r e d behaviour.

Three r l ist i n c t t ypes of re in forcement e x i s t namely:

punishment o r nega t ive re in forcement , e x t i n c t i o n o r

n e u t r a l re inforcement , and p o s i t i v e re inforcement ,

Iiunish~ncnt a s an ins t rument of c o n t r o l l i n g behaviour

can k-e used i n two ways: The f irst is b y i n f l i c t i n g

phydcal o r emot ional pa in such a s demotion, reprimand

e t c . The second is b y wi thdrawal o f a d e s i r e d s t imu lus

such a s food o r water . The purpose of punishnient i s t o

comple te ly s t o p o r a t l e a s t dec rease the occurence of a

c e r t a i n t-,ehaviour, Skinner a rgues a g a i r s t yun ishnent f o r

c o n t r o l l i n g behaviour f o r s e v e r a l reasons. F i r s t l y , when

t h e punish ing agen t is a b s e n t , t h e i n d i v i d u a l may a g a i n

e x h i t , i t t h e undesi red response , Secondly, punishment

t e l . 1 ~ someone what no t -to do b u t i t does not shape h i s

behav iour i n t h e d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n . It shows him what

i s wrong k,ut no t what is r i g h t . Th i rd ly , t h e person who

i s be ing punished may s t r i k e back a t t h e punisher ,

F i n a l l y , i t can cause p s y c h o l o ~ i c a l and p h y s i c a l darnage

t o t h e punished i n d i v i d u a l ,

7 1

E x t i n c t i o n c o n s i s t s of app ly ing a n e u t r a l s t imulus

a f t e r t h e behaviour occurs . The behaviour is n e i t h e r

rewarded n o r punished. This method h a s fewer u n d e s i r a b l e

consequences t han punishment bu t it s t i l l does n o t induce

o r t e ach t h e d e s i r e d tlehaviour.

P o s i t i v e rc inforcement i s most recommended by

Skinner. It is e f f i c i e n t because it i n c r e a s e s t h e

l i k e l i h o o d of a d e s i r e d response . Favourable emotions

a r e aroused. Also, t h e p h y s i c a l and emotional d i s comfor t

of punishment a r e avoided. One of t h e b e s t known examples

o f p o s i t i v e re inforcement was i ts a p p l i c a t i o n i n Emery

A i r F r e i g h t Corporation. By u s i n g s imple programmes of

re inforcement f o r workers, the company claimed t o have

saved s e v e r a l m i l l i o n d o l l a r s through increased produc t i -

v i t y ( ~ e e n e y , 1978, p. 56),

It i s worthy of no t e t h a t t h e schedule of app ly ing

a re inforcement has a n e f f e c t upon i t s u s e f u l n e s s i n

o b t a i n i n g responses from a n ind iv idua l . There a r e t h r e e

b a s i c rc in forcement s chedu le s a v a i l a b l e - cont inous ,

f i x e d r a t i o b u t no t con t inous schedule , and v a r i a b l e

schedule . . A con t inous schedule rewards a person every

t ime he exh i " J t s t h e d e s i r e d behaviour , f o r example,

p i e c e - r a t e wage i n c e n t i v e and sa lesmen 's commission

p l a n s , whi1.e a v a r i a b l e schedule r e i n f o r c e s behaviour

randomly. I n between con t inous and v a r i a b l e reward

s chedu le s i s f i x e d bu t non con t inous schedule , To make

behaviour mod i f i ca t i on e f f e c t i v e , Skinner s a y s t h a t

re in forcement should be very prompt o r immediate, This

is neces sa ry so a s t o enab le t h e i n d i v i d u a l l i n k

behaviour w i t h re- inforcement ,

Sk inners theory has been c r i t i c i z e d by some w r i t e r s ,

The c r i t i c i s m s l e v e l l e d a g a i n s t it inc lude :

(I) I t den ies t h e e x i s t e n c e of f r e e w i l l and

t h e autonomous, inner-mot ivated man. I t

c o n t r o l s one 's environment and l a r g e l y

i gno re s one ' s i n t e r n a l needs. I t i s s e e n

a s a t h r e a t t o t h e c l a s s i c a l concepts of

human d i g n i t y and autonomy.

(2 ) I t i s manipula t ive and b r i b e r y o r i e n t e d i n

a n a t t emp t t o s ecu re workers s u p e r i o r

p e r f ormance,

(3) - I t r e l i e s s o l e l y on e x t r i n s i c rewards and

igno re s t h e mo t iva t i ona l impact of i n t r i n s i c

rewards,

73

( 4 ) I t l e a v e s unanswered ques t i ons such a s what

r e f o r c e r s should be used? How long w i l l a

r e i n f o r c e r be s u c c e s s f u l ?

( 5 ) I t i s a n over s i m p l i f i e d exp lana t ion o f a

complex s u b j e c t ma t t e r of worker motivation.

2.3 I'KINCIPIXS OF MOTIVATION

Seve ra l fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of mot iva t ion can

be d e ~ i v e d from the a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e . Al len

(1973, p. 175) gave t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s a s :

( a ) The p r i n c i p l e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n : P a r t i c i p a t i o n

i nvo lves making sys t ema t i c p r o v i s i o n f o r

c o r w u l t a t i o n wi th subo rd ina t e s i n those ma t t e r s

d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i r jobs. I n developing

p a r t i c i p a t i o n , management a s k s workers f o r t h e i r

sugges t i ons , recommendations and adv i se on m a t t e r s

th2. t a r f e c t t h e ' i r work. This p r i n c i p l e i s based

on t h e philosophy t h a t mot iva t ion t o accomplish

r e s u l t s t ends t o i n c r e a s e a s people a r e g iven I "\ oppor tun i ty t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g

t h o s e r e s u l t s . Th is p r i n c i p l e was t e s t e d i n t h e

Armco S t e e l Corporat ion and round e f f e c t i v e ,

Consccyently, t h e Board of L . i rec tors s t a t e d

ItMutual i n t e r e s t i s t h e cement t h a t b inds a group

of men and women t o g e t h e r i n every sought o f

p roduc t ive e f f o r t . Without t h e m u t u d i n t e r e s t ,

t h e r e can t.,e no s e r i o u s a p p l i c a t i o n , no r e a l l o y a l t y ,

no c o r d i a l co-operat ion, and l i t t l e chance f o r

concer ted and e f f e c t i v e e f f o r t n (Armco, 1919, p, 6 ) ,

In app ly ing t h i s p r i n c i p l e , the fo l l owing r u l e s

should k e observed:

( i ) The Manager remains accountaS1.e: No ma t t e r

how much h i s people p a r t i c i p a t e , t h e manager

must r e se rve t h e r i g h t t o make t h e f i n a l

decis ion. He must make t h i s unders tood o r

he w i l l be i n danger of a b d i c a t i n g h i s .

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . I t 's up t o t h e rrlanager t o

h e l p them s e e t h e whole p i c t u r e and t o s ecu re

t h e i r acceptance and suppor t ,

( i i ) Keep e x p e c t a t i o n s r e a s ~ n a k ~ l e : Not eve ry

d e c i s i o n c a l l s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I f people

cannot c o n t r i b u t e meaningfully, it i s b e t t e r

. n o t t o a s k f o r s u g g e s t i o n s . We s h o u l d a v o i d

r a i s i n g expectai t ions which we cannot s a t i s f y .

We should make it c l e a r t h a t a l though we a r e

ask ing f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , we w i l l make

d e c i s i o n s t h a t we f e e l w i l l b e s t r e f l e c t t h e

needs and i n t e r e s t s of t h e workers and t h e

o rgan iza t i on .

( i i i ) PI-ovid ing e i t h e r answer o r a c t i o n : Every

sugges t ion t h a t i s o f f e r e d mer i t s e i t h e r answer

o r nc t i on . The b e s t approach he re i s f o r the

rnaage r t o c a l l t o g e t h e r t hose who have p a r t i c i p a t e d ,

then announce t h e d e c i s i o n and why it was made.

;iie should e x p l a i n why -the idea cannot be used i f

r e j e c t e d .

( i v ) G i v e c r e d i t where due : 'When we announce our

d e c i s i o n , w e should be s u r e t o mention by name

t h e i n d i v i d u a l s whose i d e a s were incorpora ted .

;Je w i l l g a in more if we a r e u n s e l f i s h w i th t h e

c r e d i t .

( b ) I ' r i n c i p l e o f Communication: Communication h e l p s

mlke work purposeIu1. The more a person knows

about a mat te r , t h e more i n t e r e s t and concern he

w i l l develop. When management makes an obvious

e f f o r t t o keep t h e workers informed, it is 1

expressing t h e importance a t t a c h e d t o them,

Motivat ion t o accomplish r e s u l t s t e n d s t o i n c r e a s e

a s people a r e kep t informed about rnatlers

a f f e c t i n g t h e i r r e s u l t s , If workers know what

t h e goa l s a r e and what e f f o r t s a r e being made

towards them, it g i v e s them a s e n s e of commit-

ment and importance,

( c ) The P r i n c i p l e o f r e c o g n i t i o n : People w i l l c o n s i s t e n t l y

work ha rde r i f they g e t con t inu ing r e c o k n i t i o n and

s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h e i r e f f o r t s , When we g ive

c r e d i t o r monetary reward t o a person who has

earned it, we a r e making c l e a r t h a t we c o n s i d e r

him an important and worthwhile member of t he

team, Thus mot iva t ion t o a ccomplish r e s u l t s

t e n d s t o i n c r e a s e a s people a r e g iven r e c o g n i t i o n

f o r t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t hose r e s u l t s .

( c l ) P r i n c i p l e of de l ega t ed a u t h o r i t y : Mot ivat ion t o

accomplish r e s u l t s t ends t o i n c r e a s e a s people a r e

g iven a u t h o r i t y t o make d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g t h o s e

r e s u l t s , For example, when we t e l l people , "Here

i s a job t o do, you can make your own d e c i s i o n s

on how you t h i n k it should be doneu, it imp l i e s

t h a t t hey a r e capab le , cornge t e n t , r e spons ib l e and

impor tan t i n d i v i d u a l s , Giving people t h e a u t h o r i t y

t o make t h e i r own d e c i s i o n s g ives 'them a ves t ed

i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e s u l t s t h e y accomplish.

The b e s t approach f o r managers i n su ing t h e s e

p r i n c i p l e s is t o unders tand each person, both a s an

ind iv i r lua l and a s a member of t h e group, and t o work

wi th se2arat.e i n d i v i d u a l s on t h e i r own terms. Al len

(1964 p. 269) went f u r t h e r by sugges t i ng ways t o

improve mot ivat ion. These i nc lude :

( a ) Know your people: A manager can b e s t h e l p h i s

subo rd ina t e s g e t t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n t h e y want from

t h t : i r jobs i f he knows t h e i r s p e c i a l needs.

Perhaps, one person s e c u r e s h i s f e e l i n g of

r cco@t ion and importance from money, a n o t h e r

from s t a t u s , s t i l l a t h i r d from new cha l l enges

2nd exper iences . The manager can l e a r n about h i s

pcople th rough obse rva t ion and survey study.

Help develop a f e e l i n g of p r o p r i e t o r s h i p : Being

human, we tend .to show g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t and

concern i n t h i n g s t h a t belong t o us. he can

h e l p a worker cap tu re much o f t h i s fee l - ing o f

p r o p r i e t o r s h i p on t h e job by p rope r mot iva t ion

- keep him informed about mat te r s t h a t concern

him, c r e a t e oppor tun i ty f o r development e t c .

( c ) Encourage team work: People want t o f e e l t h a t

t hey a r e p a r t of t h e team. They want t o be accep ted

and l i k e d by t h e i r fe l lows . The g r e a t e r t h i s

team f e e l i n g , t h e more s t r o n g l y t h e y w i l l f e e l

i ~ n p e l l e d t o work hard and p roduc t ive ly t o

ach ieve t h e g o a l s of t h e group.

( d ) Develop f r i e n d l y compet i t ion : Competition is a

s t r o n g mot iva t ing inf ' luence widely used i n o u r

s o c i e t y . I t he lp s t o genera te keen i . n t e r e s t i n

r c s u l ts and s t i m u l a t e s i n i t i a t i v e and ingenu i ty

i n ~ e t t i n g t h e work done. I n bus ines s , compet i t ion

may t a k e t h e form of 5us ines s game, and i s most

commonly used i n s t i l e s depar tments . It i s

pr:lct ica l l y s t anda rd p r a c t i c e t o have salesnlen

conipcto a g a i n s t one ano-Lhcr f o r v t > r i o u s awards

2nd p r i c e s . Another form of compet i t ion is

t h j - t ~g~hich t a k t s p l ace among members of t h e

management h i e r a r c h y i n most o r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r

t h e p r i c e of a promotion,

However, compet i t ion has s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n s a s

a motivz-Lor v;hen used w i t h i n a n o rgan iza t i on ,

F i r s t l y , j ea lousy and h o s t i l i t y may develop among t h e

employees competing f o r t h e same ends , t h u s l ead ing t o

poor mutusl co-operat ion. Secondly, it i s capable of

b r i n g i n g about f r u s t r a t i o n t o t h e l o s e r s . In compet i t ive

s i t u a t i o n s , somet.ody nus t l o s e . To m i t i g a t e t h e

d i sappoin tment , o f f e r a s many awards a s you r e s sonab ly

can and t r y t o hold ouk f u r t h e r compet i t ion of t h e same

kind 2 s a n immediate i n c e n t i v e t o those who d i d no t win

&t f i r s t .

Herzbcrg and h i s a s s o c i a t e s p o s t u l a t e d t h a t money

s e r v e s as a d i s s a t i s f i e r and n o t a s a mot ivator . However,

L e a v i t t (1964, p. 208) f e e l s t h e con t r a ry . i iccording

to him, money is a n impor tan t mot iva t ing f o r c e i n t h e

i n d u s t r y , and a s i g n i f i c a n t way of encouraging hardwork.

I t i s important psychtblogically f o r t h e same reason t h a t

i s impor tan t economically; it i s a symbolic subs tance , a

common b a s i s f o r t h e exchange of goods and s e r v i c e s ,

Money occupies a c e n t r a l p l a c e because it i s a common

means f o r s s t i s f y i n g a l l s o r t s o f needs i n our s o c i e t y ,

i n c l u d i n g p rov id ing t h e m a t e r i a l n e c e s s i t i e s o f l i f e .

But it i s most impor tan t f o r what it symbol izes t o t h e

r e c i p i e n t . Moreover, money i n c e n t i v e s f i t w i t h o u r

c u l t u r e I s concep t ion o f what work means; w i th work

r ega rded a s a c t i v i t y g iven by peop le i n exchange f o r

means o f l i v e l i h o o d , e s p e c i a l l y money. Thus money

ea rned a l l ows t h e worker t o s a t i s f y h i s i d i o s y n c r a t i c

needs o f f t h e job.

To u s e money (e.g. pay, bonus e t c ) e f f e c t i v e l y a s

a m o t i v a t i o n a l t o o l , t h e manager must s t u d y his peop l e ,

t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which t h e y work and t h e t a s k s

which t h e y perform. Pay can on ly mot iva te if t h e pay

p l a n :

(1)

( i i )

( i i i )

c r e a t e s a b e l i e f t h a t good performance l e a d s

t o h i g h l e v e l s o f pay;

minimizes n e g a t i v e consequences o f good

performance ; and

c r e a t e s c o n d i t i o n s s o t h a t d e s i r e d rewards

o t h e r t h a n pay a r e viewed by employees t o

be r e l a t e d t o good performance.

assumpt ions must a p p l y f o r money t o be a

mot iva to r . These a r e t h a t employees:

81

(I) want t o make more money and w i l l ' change

behaviour t o do so .

( 2 ) must c l e a r l y s e e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between

e f f o r t and rewards,

(3 ) have t h e abi.Lity and s k i l l t o i n c r e a s e

output .

(4 ) s a t i s f y u n f u l f i l l e d needs by ea rn ing more

money.

( 5 ) o t h e r work c o n d i t i o n s do n o t nega te t h e

d e s i r e t o i nc rea se o u t p u t f o r more money.

Money a f f e c t s t h e job behaviour of employees i n a t

l e a s t two ways. One, a s a g e n e r a l i z e d condi t ioned

r e i n f o r c e r . Here money a c t s a s a g e n e r a l i z e d condi t ioned

r e i n f o r c e r because of i t s r epea t ed p a i r i n g s wi th pr imary

r e i n f o r c e r s (Kel leher and Col lub, 1962; Skinner 1953).

Sk inner opined t h a t such a g e n e r a l i z e d r e i n f o r c e r should

be extremely e f f e c t i v e because some d e p r i v a t i o n s w i l l

u s u a l l y e x i s t f o r which t h e condi t ioned r e i n f o r c e r

is a p p r o p r i a t e . Two, a s a n a n x i e t y reducer , The

a c t u a l presence of money produces cues f o r t h e c e s s a t i o n

of anx ie ty . Brown (1961, p. 321) u t i l i z e d t h e concept

o f d r i v e t o e x p l a i n how money a f f e c t s behaviour. He

sugges ted t h a t one l e a r n s t o become anxious i n t h e

presence of a v a r i e t y of cues s i g n i f y i n g t h e absence

o f money.

In h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e f i e l d of mot iva t ion ,

K i l l i a n (1981, p. 79) gave t h e f a c t o r s t h a t determine

response t o mot ivat ion t o inc lude t h e fo l lowing :

1. St reng th of i n t e n s i t y of d r i v e : The degree

of a workers i n t e n s i t y o f a d r i v e a f f e c t s

h i s response t o a mo t iva t i ona l package,

How badly does t h e employee want o r need

a d d i t i o n a l income? What i n t e r e s t does he

have i n job s e c u r i t y ? How ambit ions i s he?

What needs can t h e job s a t i s f y ? A l l t h e s e

a f f e c t h i s mot iva t ion ,

2. Pas t exper ience : Employees l e a r n qu i ck ly

whether t h e y can coun t on what t h e s u p e r i o r

and/or management says . If an employee i s

l e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t promotion w i l l be h i s

reward f o r e x e r t i n g e x t r a e f f o r t , and

i f t h e promotion is n o t f o r t h coming a f t e r

such a n e f f o r t , t h a t i n d i v i d u a l is n o t l i k e l y

t o be foo led t h e second t ime. Subsequent

mot iva t iona l e f f o r t s w i l l be t aken wi th a

pinch of s a l t . Employees l e a r n from every

i n c i d e n t and t h e i r responses a r e i n f luenced

favourab ly o r n e g a t i v e l y by every exper ience.

Amount of reward: The amount o f reward - pay

i n c r e a s e , r e c o g n i t i o n , e t c - and t h e degree

of s a t i s f a c t i o n de r ived from a job i n f luence

workers t w i l l i n g n e s s t o e x e r t themselves.

Regardless of t h e type of i n c e n t i v e used,

t h e type and amount o f reward coupled wi th

t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e worker i n f l u e n c e s

t h e amount of e x t r a e f f o r t exe r t ed .

Time r e l a t i o n s h i p of response t o reward:

The time r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e worker ' s

response t o e x t r a e f f o r t and t h e reward

a f f e c t s h i s mot ivat ion. Keward should be

admin is te red a s soon a s t h e d e s i r e d e f f o r t

i s achieved. If a reward is delayed too

long, it l o s e s i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . For

t h i s reason, i n c e n t i v e s and o t h e r forms of

e x t r a compensation a r e o f t e n pa id assoon

a s p o s s i b l e , i n o r d e r t o l i n k performance

wi th reward. Delay u n t i l end of t h e year

may we l l r e s u l t i n a s l acken ing of e f f o r t e a r l y

i n t h e year and i n e x t r a e x e r t i o n only when t h e

t ime f o r reward nears . Thus f o r some groups of

employees, e s p e c i a l l y a t lower l e v e l s , prof it

s h a r i n g and r e t i r e m e n t p l ans a r e f a r l e s s e f f e c -

t i v e t h a n pay increase ,

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODLOGY

3.1 THE POPULATION

The popu l a t i on f o r t h i s s t u d y comprised a l l

workers o f t h e Af r ican C o n t i n e n t a l Bank Ltd ( A C B ) ,

Lagos, numbering abou t 6,490. The j u n i o r members o f

s t a f f nu1115er abou t 4,478 wh i l e t h e s e n i o r members

o f s t a f f number abou t 2,012,

3.2 METHOD OF SAMPLING

Due t o t h e widespread o p e r a t i o n o f t h e bank w i t h

122 Pbranches i n N ige r i a , coupled w i t h t h e p r e s s u r e of

t ime , f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t and convenience , t h e sampl ing

was r e s t r i c t e d t o workers of ACB Ltd, head o f f i c e ,

Lagos. The head o f f i c e , having s u f f i c i e n t number of

workers pos se s s ing t h e v a r i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r

independen t v a r i a b l e s o f t h e s t udy , gave a t r u e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e popu la t ion .

INSTIIUIVENTS FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data co l lec t . ion was by primary and secondary

methods.

I n t h e g a t h e r i n g of primary d a t a , employee a t t i t u d e

surveys were conducted. The major ins t rument o f t h e

survey e f f o r t was t h e ques t i onna i r e . Th is was des igned

and admin is te red on employees of t h e bank.

Persona l o r a l i n t e rv i ews were employed t o supplement

t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e sources . In te rv iews were mainly used

t o e l i c i t informat ion from t h e management of t h e bank,

3.4 TOOLS FOR ANALYZING RESULTS

In t h i s p r o j e c t r e p o r t , p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e s u l t i s

bo th d e s c r i p t i v e and a n a l y t i c a l . Tab les and pe rcen t ages

2 were mainly used. Chi - square ( X ) s t a t i s t i c was

used f o r t e s t i n g t h e hypothesis .

3.5 INFOHI'4ATION ON PILOT SURVEY

To ensu re t h a t l e s s educated respondents were a b l e

t o understand and p rope r ly complete t h e ques t i onna i r e ,

p i l o t survey was conducted. The survey proved reasonably

s a t i s f a c t o r y ,

3.6 INFOIlW~TION ABOUT RESPONSE HATE

* The 323 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s employed i n t h i s s t udy

were d i s t r i b u t e d as below:

No. - % of To ta l

Ope ra t i ve s ( ~ u n i o r S t a f f ) 223 69

Sen io r S t a f f

* For computation of sample s i z e , s e e Appendix I ,

Out o f t h i s number admin is te red , on ly 286 were

r e t u r n e d , r e p r e s e n t i n g 88.5 pe rcen t , Analys is of

r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a s fo l lows:

P rope r ly Returned Uisallowed Completed

J u n i o r S t a f f 2 02 8 194

Thus r e s u l t s of t h e s tudy a r e based on t h e 276

p r o p e r l y completed ques t i onna i r e s .

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY

4*1 INTKODUCT I O N

The r e s u l t s of t h e s t u d y were based on t h e d a t a

e x t r a c t e d from t h e 276 p r o p e r l y completed q u e s t i o n -

n a i r e s r e t u r n e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .

I n t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e background/independent

v a r i a b l e s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were p r e s e n t e d t o g u i d e

t h e a n a l y s i s t h a t fo l lowed. These background v a r i a b l e s

i n c l u d e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n o r s t a t u s , m a r i t a l

s t a t u s , sex, l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e and e d u c a t i o n a l

a t t a i n m e n t .

4.2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS

The p o s i t i o n / s t a t u s o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e bank

is c o n t a i n e d i n t a b l e 1,

Table 1 S t a t u s of Respondents i n t h e Bank

~ a t e g o r y / S t a t u s

Table 1 shows t h a t 194 o f t h e respondents , r e p r e s e n t i n g

70.3 p e r c e n t , were j u n i o r workers ( o r o p e r a t i v e s ) whi le

eighty-two, r e p r e s e n t i n g 29.7 pe rcen t , were s e n i o r

memt~ers o f s t a f f ,

J u n i o r S t a f f

Sen io r S t a f f

TOTAL

4.2.2 MARITAL STATUS

No. of Respondents

The m a r i t a l s t a t u s of t h e respondents is conta ined

i n t a b l e 2.

%

1 94

82

276

Table 2 Mar i t a l S t a t u s of Hespondents i n t h e Bank

70.3

29.7

1 00

M a r i t a l S t a t u s 1 No. o f Respondents I %

TOTAL I 276 1 100

S i n g l e

Married

181

95

65.6

34.4

Table 2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t 65.6 pe rcen t of t h e 276

respondents a r e s i n g l e whi le 34.4 p e r c e n t a r e married,

T h i s d a t a shows t h a t ma jo r i t y of t h e respondents a r e

s i n g l e ,

4 2 . 3 SEX OF RESPONDENTS

The s e x of t h e 276 respondents used i n t h i s

s t udy i s a s s t a t e d i n t a b l e 3 below:

Table 3 l ) i s t r . ibu t ion of Respondents by Sex

TOTAL 1, 276 I 100

Sex

Ma l e

Female

Table 3 shows t h a t 71.7 p e r c e n t of t h e

respondents a r e male workers whi le 28.3 pe rcen t a r e

I

females. Th i s r e v e a l s t h e f a c t t h a t ACB Ltd. employs

No, o f Respondents

1 98

78

more male t han female workers, which may be a t t r i b u t e d

%

71.7

28.3

t o male domination of t h e f i n a n c i a l and o t h e r bus ines s

d i s c i p l i n e , coupled wi th t h e f a c t t h a t a t o p e r a t i v e s

l e v e l , female do no t seem f i t f o r c e r t a i n jobs, such

a s despa tch r i d e r s , messengers, d r i v e r s e t c ,

4.2.4 LENGTH OF SERVICE

The t a b l e below i n d i c a t e t h e l e n g t h of s e r v i c e

p u t i n b y t h e respondents i n t h e bank.

Table 4 Length of Serv ice of Respondents

10 and above I 61 1 22.1

No. of Years

Below 5

Table 4 shows t h a t 31.2 pe rcen t o f t h e respondents

No. of Hespondents

86

TOTAL

have p u t i n below f i v e y e a r s s e r v i c e i n t he bank; 46,7

%

31 .2

p e r c e n t have worked i n ACB f o r p e r i o d s ranging from

276

f i v e t o n ine years whi le 22.1 pe rcen t have been wi th

100

t h e bank f o r a per iod of a t l e a s t t e n years.

The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents

i s t h a t l abou r t u rnove r i n ACB is r e l a t i v e l y low a s

r evea l ed by t h e g r e a t e r percentage (68.8 p e r c e n t )

having worked i n ACB f o r a minimum of f i v e years .

4.2.5 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

The educa t iona l l e v e l o f respondents is a s

con te ined i n tatole 5 below:

'Table 5 Summary of Educa t iona l l e v e l of Respondents

High

F a u c a t i o n a l a t t a inmen t No. o f Respondents

Low I 202 I 73.2

%

Table 5 above i n d i c a t e s t h a t 26,8 pe rcen t of t h e

respondents have a t t a i n e d h i g h e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , i.e,

HND and above, while 73.2 pe rcen t have low l e v e l of

educa t ion . This p a t t e r n of d i s t r i b u t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l

q u a l i f i c a t i o n of respondents may be because ACB is

one o f t h e o l d e r banks which emphasized on-the-job

TOTAL

t r a i n i n g and workshops due t o t h e r e l a t i v e s c a r c i k y

of s k i l l e d workers p r i o r t o 1980's .

4.3 INFORMATION ABOUT MOTIVATIONAL VAHIABLLS

The job f a c t o r s t h a t were exp lored i n l i n e wi th

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e respondents were t h e hygiene

276 1 00

and t h e mot ivator f a c t o r s proposed by Herzberg.

The hygiene f a c t o r s a r e t h o s e f a c t o r s sur rounding

t h e work environment and inc lude s a l a r y , job s e c u r i t y ,

promotion, company p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , working

environment e t c . whi le t h e mot iva tor f a c t o r s surround

t h e work i t s e l f , such a s achievement, r e c o g n i t i o n ,

advzncement, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and work i t s e l f .

4.4 III;~Ll\TIONSHIP BETWEEN CHAHACTEHISTICS OF 1WiPONDENTS A N D MOTIVATIONAL VARIABLES

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

respondents and mo t iva t i ona l v a r i a b l e s were ana lysed

and d i s cus sed i n l i n e w i th t h e o b j e c t i v e s and t h e

hypo thes i s of t h e s tudy. Consequently, t h e f i v e hypothe-

sis of t h e s tudy were t e s t e d below:

4.4.1 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS ONE

Th i s hypothes i s p o s t u l a t e s t h a t :

THE SENIOR STAFF OF AFKICAN CONTINENTAL

BANK WOULD PREFER HEHZBERG'S MOTIVATORS

MORE THAN THE J U N I O R STAFF, WHO WOULD

~;KEFEK THE HYG ~ E N E FACTORS.

To t e s t t h i s hypothes i s , r e s u l t s ob ta ined from

q u e s t i o n s 7 - 1 7 a s w e l l a s ques t i on 1 8 would be used.

In ques t i ons 7 - 13, workers a t t i t u d e and p r e f e r e n c e s

f o r Herzberg 's hygiene f a c t o r s were sought whi le q u e s t i o n s

14 - 1 7 t r i e d t o u n v e i l workers d e s i r e s f o r mot iva tors

i n o r d e r t o pu t i n s u p e r i o r performance.

In q u e s t i o n 18, respondents were asked t o rank

a l i s t of t h i r t e e n job f a c t o r s proposed by Herzberg i n

t h e o r d e r o f p re fe rence f o r which t h e f a c t o r s would make

them t o work harder .

Tables 6.0 and 6.1 below shows t h e summary of

t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i r (employees) responses f o r

hygiene and mot iva tors r e s p e c t i v e l y ,

Table 6.0

Ques t ion

No.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Tes t of Preference f o r hygiene f a c t o r s by employee s t a t u s

-

Job f a c t o r t e s t e d

Company p o l i c y and administ- r a t i o n

Supervis ion

Working condi t ions

Sa la ry

In te rper - sona l r e l a t i o n s

S t a t u s / p o s i t i o n

Job S e c u r i t y ,

TOTAL

J U N I O R STAFF 7

Poin t s obtained r t o t a l p o i n t s

16

15,8

10.1

17.0

12.1

12.6

16.4

SENIOR STAFF

Poin ts obtained

-.

r t o t a l p o i n t s

1505

1000

1403

16,9

1500

11.6

16.3

J U N l O H STAFF (contd)

SENIOR STAFF (contd)

Percentage of t o t a l p o i n t s obtained t o t o t a l po in t s 5605 83% 1348 = 48%

a v a i l a b l e

Table 6.1

Ques t ion No

by employee s t a t u s

Job f a c t o r t e s t e d

J U N I O R STAFF

Achievement

Recognition

Work i t s e l f

Responsibi-

l i t y '

Percentage of t o t a l poin ts ' obtained

Poin ts obtained

% of t o t a l point:

25.2

34.1

18.4

SENIOR STAFF

Poin ts obtaine(

% of t o t a l p o i n t s

t o t o t a l po in t s 1715 = 44% 1286 = 78% a v a i l a b l e - --- --- - --- ---

3880~ 1640*

' For computation of t o t a l po in t s ava i l ab le see Appendix 11.

Table 6.0 shows t h a t of t h e hygiene f a c t o r s t e s t e d

s a l a r y came first wi th 1 7 pe rcen t from j u n i o r s t a f f and

16.9 p e r c e n t from s e n i o r s t a f f . Job s e c u r i t y ca:je

nex t wi th 16.4 percen t and 16.3 pe rcen t f o r j u n i o r and

s e n i o r s t a f f r e s p e c t i v e l y . Company p o l i c y and admin is t -

r a t i o n came t h i r d wi th 16.0 pe rcen t and 15.5 pe rcen t

f o r j u n i o r and s e n i o r s t a f f r e s p e c t i v e l y . This r e s u l t

shows t h a t s a l a r y i s t h e s t r o n g e s t hygiene f a c t o r which

can move Niger ian workers t o s u p e r i o r performance.

Table 6.1 which concerned i t s e l f wi th t h e mot iva tors

r evea l ed t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n was t h e most important mot iva tor

f a c t o r f o r t h e j u n i o r s t a f f , having r ece ived 34.1 p e r c e n t

a s a g a i n s t 23.3 pe rcen t f o r t h e s e n i o r s t a f f . On t h e

o t h e r hand, achievement was t h e most important mot iva tor

f o r t h e s e n i o r s t a f f , wi th 27.3 pe rcen t a s a g a i n s t t h e

j u n i o r s t a f f ' s 25.2 percent .

Col laps ing t a b l e s 6.0 and 6.1 i n t o mot ivator and

hygiene f a c t o r s , we have t h e r e s u l t i n t a b l e 6.2.

Table b.2 Summary of preference f o r motivators and hygiene f a c t o r s

Preference f o r Hygiene

Motivational Variable

Table 6.2 shows t h a t whereas 83 percent of operatives/

jun io r s t a f f showed preference f o r hygiene factors,

48 percc:nt of the s e n i o r . s t a f f had preference f o r hygiene

f a c t o r s , a d i f f e rence of 35 percent. On the o the r hand,

the preference f o r motivators were 78 percent and 44

percent f o r s e n i o r s t a f f and junior s t a f f respect ive ly ,

a d i f f e rence of 31 percent. . It the re fo re seems t h a t

ope ra t ives a r e more l i k e l y t o p r e f e r hygiene f a c t o r s t o

put i n super io r performance, and the s e n i o r s t a f f

a r e more l i k e l y -to p r e f e r motivators.

To f u r t h e r t e s t t h e hypothesis, respondents were'

requested i n quest ion 18 t o r a t e a l i s t of t h i r t e e n

f a c t o r s i n t h e order t h a t they would make a person

work harded. Table 7 shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the

respondents f i r s t r a t ings .

99

STATUS

Preference f o r motivators

J U N I O R STAFF 9/0 obtained

SENIOR STAFF % obtained

44 78

Table 7.0 Zrnployee Hating of Motivational Variables by S ta tus

Job f a c t o r

Salary

Job s e c u r i t y

Promotion

Company po l i cy and Administration

Recognit ion

Respons ib i l i ty

Work i t s e l f

Achievement

TOTAL

S ta tus of Respondents

J U N I O R No. % of t o t a l

SENIOR No. % of t o t a l

Table 7.0 r evea l s t h a t junior s t a f f showed t h e i r

g r e a t e s t preference f o r s a l a r y with 70.1 percent a s

a g a i n s t t h e s e n i o r s t a f f ' s preference of 24.4 percent ,

a d i f f e r e n c e of 45.7 percent. On t h e o t h e r hand, the

s e n i o r s t a f f ind ica ted t h e i r h ighes t preference f o r

t h e work i t s e l f with 26.8 percent aga ins t zero

pre fe r ence of t h e j u n i o r s t a f f .

Col laps ing t a b l e 7.0 i n t o hygiene and mot ivator

f a c t o r s , we have t a b l e '7.1 below:

Table 7.1 Summary of Mot iva t iona l Va r i ab l e s by S t a t u s

P re fe r ence f o r Hygiene 1 163

-- ~ ~ ~

Motiva t iona l

Va r i ab l e s

P re fe r ence f o r Mot iva tors

TOTAL 1 194 100 1 82 100

S t a t u s of Respondents

Table 7.1 r e v e a l s t h a t 84 p e r c e n t of t h e j u n i o r

J U N I O R No, % of t o t a l

s t a f f had pre fe rence f o r hygiene f a c t o r s whi le 34.1

SEN IOH No. % of t o t a l

p e r c e n t o f t h e s e n i o r s t a f f showed p re fe r ence f o r

hygiene, On t h e o t h e r hand, 65.9 p e r c e n t of t h e

s e n i o r s t a f f showed p re fe r ence f o r mot iva tors whi le

on ly 16 pe rcen t of t h e j u n i o r s t a f f i n d i c a t e d p re f e r ence

f o r mot ivators .

Both t h e r e s u l t ob ta ined us ing ques t i ons 7 - 17

and q u e s t i o n 1 8 i n d i c a t e t h a t j u n i o r s t a f f would p r e f e r

hygiene f a c t o r s whi le s e n i o r s t a f f would p r e f e r

motivators. This r e s u l t e s t a b l i s h e s prima f a c i e an

a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e v a r i a b l e s ( s t a t u s and motivat ional

v a r i a b l e s ) ,

To t e s t the s t a t i s t i c a l s ign i f i cance of t h i s 2

rel~tionship/association t he Chi - square ( X ) t e s t

was performed a s shown below:

N u l l hypothesis, Ho : The s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB Ltd

would not p r e f e r Herzberg's

motivators more than the junior

s t a f f , who would p r e f e r the

hygiene f a c t o r s ,

Al t e rna t ive Hypothesis, H : The s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB Ltd

1 would p r e f e r Herzberg's motivators

more than the junior s t a f f .

S t a t u s of Respondents i n the Bank

Motivat ional Var iables

Utaff

163

31

1 94

Preference f o r Hygiene

Preference f o r Motivators

TOTAL I

Staf f

28

54

82

Tota l

1 91

85

276

Degree of freedom - - (2-1 )(24 ) = I

l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e = 5 pe rcen t , i .e . 0.05

C r i t i c a l va lue o r Tabula ted X 2

Computed X 2

DEC ISION :

The c r i t i c a l v a l u e a t 5 pe rcen t l e v e l

2 f o r t h e X based on one degree of freedom

of s i g n i f i c a n c e

is 3,84. S ince

2 t h e observed value of X o f 67.38 is g r e a t e r t h a n 3.84,

we do n o t a c c e p t t h e n u l l hypothes i s of no a s s o c i a t i o n

n e i t h e r do we r e j e c t t h e r e s e a r c h hypothesis . The

observed d a t a p rov ides some evidence t o suppor t t h e

e x i s t e n c e of a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e p re f e r ence of t h e

s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB and Herzberg 's mot iva tors . We

t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e hypothes i s

s t a t i n i ; t h a t " the s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB would p r e f e r

Herzbergs mot iva tors more t h a n t h e j u n i o r s t a f f " is

accepted.

To f u r t h e r t e s t hypothes i s one, t h e t o t a l p o i n t s

approach was adopted, This approach y i e lded t h e r e s u l t

i n t a b l e 8 below:

* For c a l c u l a t i o n of comuut-ed x', srn A p ~ e n d L r IF.,

Table 8 Summary of Employee Ranking of Motivat ional Variables by S t a t u s

S t a t u s of Employee

J o b f a c t o r J U N I O R SEN I O H

ob t a ined t o t a l ob t a ined t o t a l

S a l a r y 2,306 13.1 822 10.9

~ o b s e c u r i t y 2,214 12.5 61 9 8.2

Company p o l i c y & Admin, 1,899 10-8 515 6.8

Superv isors A t t i t u d e 1,866 10.6 1 97 2.6

I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p 73 9 4.2 21 1 2.8

Promotion 2,143 12-1 654 Be6

S t a t u s 979 5.5 286 3.8

Working Lnvironment 793 4-5 367 4.9

T o t a l Hygiene 12,939 73.3 3,671 48.6

Hecognit ion 1,263 7. 2 782 10.4

H e s p o n s i . b i l i t y 532 3- 0 795 10.5

Work i t s e l f 837 4.7 882 11.7

Achievement 1,457 8.3 857 11.4

Advancement 626 3.5 559 7.4

T o t a l Motivators 4,715 26.7 3,875 51.4

GRAND TOTAL 17,654 100 7,546 1 00 I, '! ---------- ---------- z , - , - - - --- --------------- ---q---------------n

Under t h i s p o i n t approach, approximately 73

p e r c e n t o f t h e j un io r s t a f f showed pre fe rence f o r hygiene

whi le approximately 4 9 pe rcen t of t h e s e n i o r s t a f f

i n d i c a t e d p re f e r ence f o r same. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e

p re f e r ence f o r mot iva tors was approximately 51 pe rcen t and 27 p e r c e n t

Lfor s e n i o r and j u n i o r s t a f f r e s p e c t i v e l y . Th is r e s u l t

c o r r o b o r a t e s t h e r e s u l t e a r l i e r ob ta ined .

To t e s t s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , we apply c h i - 2 square ( X ) t e s t as fo l lows :

Nul l Hypothesis , Ho : The s e n i o r s t a f f o f ACB Ltd.

would no t p r e f e r Herzberg I s

mot iva to r s more t h a n t h e j u n i o r

s t a f f , who would p r e f e r t h e

hygiene f a c t o r s .

r l l t e r n a t i v e Hypothesis,

H,, : The s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB would

p r e f e r Herzberg I s mot iva tors more

t han t h e j u n i o r s t a f f .

S t a t u s of Hespondents

Mot iva t iona l v a r i a b l e s / Fac to r s

Pre fe rence f o r hygiene

Pre fe rence

f o r m o t i v a t o r s

TOTAL

S e n i o r Jun io r

Degree of freedom = (2-1)(2-I) - -

T o t a l

Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e

Tabulated X 2

Computed d

D E C I S I O N

S ince t h e computed X' i s g r e a t e r t han

2 t a 3 u l a t e d X a t 0.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e

t h e

and one

degree of freedom, we do n o t a c c e p t t h e n u l l

hypothes i s . The a l t e r n a t i v e hypothes i s t h a t t h e

s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB would p r e f e r Herzberg t s mot iva tors I

\\ more than t h e j u n i o r s t a f f is t h e r e f o r e accepted.

* For computation of t h i s value , s e e Appendix I V .

This d e c i s i o n concurs wi th t h e d e c i s i o n under

t h e f i r s t approach. A l l t h e a n a l y s i s uphold t h e

hypo thes i s being t e s t e d .

The imp l i ca t i on of t h i s d e c i s i o n / r e s u l t i s

t h a t t o rnotivate t h e j u n i o r workers /opera t ives t o

incret3sed perf'orrnance, hygiene f a c t o r s should be

used whereas mot iva tors a r e more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r

s e n i o r workers.

The importance t h e s e n i o r employees a t t a c h e d

t o non-hygiene f a c t o r s ( i .e . i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s )

can tse exp la ined ky t h e f a c t t h a t by v i r t u e of t h e

h igh incomes and b e t t e r cond i t i ons of s e r v i c e accom-

panying t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y high p o s i t i o n s i n t h e bank,

t h e y have more o r l e s s s a t i s f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t h e i r

lower l e v e l e x t r i n s i c needs, hence a s h i f t of

emphasis t o h i g h e r o r d e r needs ( i n t r i n s i c o r work

r e l a t e d ) . Thus whereas t h e j u n i o r employees a r e

stil-1 pre-occupied w i th e x t r i n s i c job f a c t o r s , t h e

s e n i o r workers have moved up t o mot ivators .

In conc lus ion , we may say t h a t i n g e n e r a l , t h e

j u n i o r s t a f f / o p e r a t i v e s a r e l i k e l y t o be mot ivated

t o s u p e r i o r performance t h e hygiene f a c t o r s

whi le t h e s e n i o r s t a f f a r e l i k e l y t o be mot ivated

by t h e mot iva tor f a c t o r s . However, it is worthy t o

no te t h a t s i n c e a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e percentage

of s e n i o r s t a f f showed p re fe r ence f o r hygiene, t h i s

i n d i c a t e s t h a t hygiene f a c t o r s e s p e c i a l l y s a l a r y

can s t i l l mot ivate and should be a p p l i e d p rope r ly

t o ach ieve performance.

4.4.2 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS TWO

T h i s hypothes i s p o s t u l a t e s t h a t :

MARRIED WORWHS ARE L ' I U L Y TO

PREFER HYGIENE FACTOHS THAN

THE UNMARRIED WORKERS

To t e s t t h i s hypothes i s , d a t a genera ted by

q u e s t i o n 18 would be used. In t h i s ques t i on , respon-

d e n t s were r e q u i r e d t o rank a l ist of t h i r t e e n

f a c t o r s i n t h e o rde r t h a t t h e y would make them

work harder . able 8 shows t h e i r responses .

Table 8 E~i~p loyee A t t i t u d e t o m o t i v a t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s

by M a r i t a l S t a t u s

S a l a r y

Job s e c u r i t y

Company p o l i c y and Admin.

S u p e r v i s o r I s

A t t i t u d e

Promot ion

S t a t u s

Working Environment

R e c o g n i t i o n

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Work i t s e l f

Achievement

Advancement

SINGLE

No. - 3 1

15

6

9

20

-

2

22

7

29

16

24 - 181 -

% of t o t a 1

17.1

8.3

3.3

5.0

11 .o -

1.1

12.2

3.9

16

8.8

13.3 - 100

No. - 29

11

3

2

16

1

1

6

8

9

4

5 - 95 -

% of t o t a l

30.5

11.6

3.2

2.1

16.8

1.1

1.1

6.3

8.4

9.5

4.2

5.2 - 1 00

T o t a l

60

26

9

11

36

1

3

28

15

38

20

29 - 2 76 -

GrouQing t h e above r e s p o n s e s i n t o Herzberg I s

hygiene and m o t i v a t o r f a c t o r s , we have t a b l e 8,l

below:

109

Table 8.1 Summary of Mot iva t iona l Var iab les by Mar i t a l S t a t u s

M a r i t a l S t a t u s of Employee

A t t i t u d e t o Mot iva t iona l SINGLE:

Va r i ab l e s t o t a l

From t h e t a b l e above, it could be s e e n t h a t

approximately 46 pe rcen t o f t h e employees who a r e

s i n g l e i n d i c a t e d p re f e r ence f o r Herzberg 's hygiene

f a c t o r s whi le approximately 66 pe rcen t of t h e marr ied

workers i n d i c a t e d p re f e r ence f o r hygiene, a d i f f e r e n c e

of 20 percen t . P re fe rence f o r mo t iva to r s is approximately

54 pe rcen t and 34 pe rcen t f o r s i n g l e and married workers

Pre fe rence f o r hygiene

Pre fe rence f o r Mot iva tors

TOTAL

r e s p e c t i v e l y .

To t e s t a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e v a r i a b l e s

( m a r i t a l s t a t u s and a t t i t u d e t o mo t iva t i ona l v a r i a b l e s ) ,

2 t h e c h i - squa re ( X ) t e s t would be employed as below:

83

98

181

45.9

54.1

100

66.3

33.7

100

63

32

95

146

130

276

Nul l hypothes i s , Ho :

A l t e r n a t i v e hypothes i s ,

H1 :

Motiva t iona l Va r i ab l e s

Pre fe rence

f o r hygiene

Pre fe rence f o r motiva- t o r s

TOTAL

Married workers a r e n o t l i k e l y

t o p r e f e r hygiene f a c t o r s t han

unmarried workers.

Married workers a r e l i k e l y

t o p r e f e r hygiene f a c t o r s

t h a n unmarried workers

M a r i t a l S t a t u s

T o t a l

Degree o f freedom = (2-3)(2-1) = 1

Level of S ign i f i cance = 5 pe rcen t ( i . e , 0.05)

2 Tabulated X / c r i t i c a l va lue = 3.84 I

Di<C IS ION :

Since t h e computed 9 is g r e a t e r t han t h e t a b u l a t e d 2 X a t 5 pe rcen t l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e and one degree

of freedom, we do n o t a c c e p t t h e n u l l hypothes i s n e i t h e r

do we r e j e c t t h e r e s e a r c h hypothes i s , We theref 'ore

a c c e p t t h e r e sea rch hypothes i s which s t a t e s t h a t

married workers a r e l i k e l y t o p r e f e r hygiene f a c t o r s

t han unmarried workers.

The imp l i ca t i on of t h i s r e s u l t i s t h a t t h e marr ied

workers 5eing h igh ly r e spons ive t o hygiene f a c t o r s would

be moved Lo s u p e r i o r performance by t h e hygiene f a c t o r s

whi le t h e s i n g l e would be moved s i p i f i c a n t l y by bo th

hygiene and mot ivator f a c t o r s .

The pre fe rence of married workers f o r hygiene

f a c t o r s may be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e i nc rea sed r e s p o n s i b i -

l i t i e s accompanying married l i f e , hence t h e i r p r e f e r ence

f o r money and money r e l a t e d f a c t o r s t o g r a t i f y t h e i r

f c l t f i n s n c i a l needs.

4.4.3 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS THREE

Hypo t h e s i s t h r e e p o s t u l a t e s t h a t :

MALE WORKERS WOULL) HAVE A HIGHER

PIUFI i IUiNCE FOR HEHZBLKC ' S MOT IVA'I'ORS

THAN THE FEMALE WOHKEIE.

To t e s t t h i s hypothes i s , d a t a c o l l e c t e d v i a

q u e s t i o n 18 was used. Table 9 shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n

o f responses ob ta ined :

Takle 9 Employee A t t i t u d e t o Mot iva t iona l

Va r i ab l e s by Sex

Sex of Employee

Job f a c t o r

S a l a r y

J o b s e c u r i t y

Superv i sors A t t i t u d e

Yromot i o n

Recogni t ion

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Nork i t s e l f

Achievement

Advancement

TOTAL

MA LE o/0 of

No. t o t a l - t o t a l

T o t a l

Col laps ing t h e above responses i n t o Herzberg I s

hygiene and mot ivator f a c t o r s , we have t h e r e s u l t i n

t a b l e 9.1

113

Table 9.1 Summary of Mot iva t iona l Var iable by Sex

Pre fe rence f o r mot iva tors 1 86 43 1 40 51 1 1 . 2 6

T o t a l

Pre fe rence f o r hygiene

I I I

TOTAL 1198 100 1 78 100 1 276

FEMALE

% of No. t o t a l

A t t i t u d e t o Mot iva t iona l Var iab les

Table 9.1 shows t h a t 37 p e r c e n t of male workers

MA LE

0/0 of No. t o t a l

112 57

p r e f e r r e d Herzberg 's hygiene f a c t o r s whi le 49 pe rcen t

of female workers i n d i c a t e d p re f e r ence f o r hygiene,

38 49

a d i f f e r e n c e of only 8 percen t . P re fe rence f o r mo t iva to r s

150

were 43 p e r c e n t and 51 pe rcen t f o r male and female workers

r e s p e c t i v e l y .

To t e s t a s s o c i a t i o n between s e x of employee and

2 a t t i t u d e t o mo t iva t i ona l v a r i a b l e s , c h i - square ( X )

t e s t was performed a s shown below:

Nul l hypothes i s , Ho : Male workers would n o t have a

h ighe r p r e f e r ence f o r Herzberg 's

mot iva tors t han t h e Pemale workers.

Al te rna t ive hypothesis,

H1 Male workers would have a higher

preference f o r Herzberg's

motivators than the female

workers.

Motivational f a c t o r / va r i ab le

Sex of Employee I Male I Female I To ta l

Degree of freedom - - (2-1 ) (2-1 ) = 1

Level of s ign i f i cance = 5 percent (i.e. 0.05)

C r i t i c a l Value a= 3.84

Computed x2 - - 1.15*

DEC IS I O N :

The computed 3 is l e s s than t h e c r i t i c a l value

a t 5 percent l e v e l of s ign i f i cance and one degree of

'

freedom, hence we accept t h e n u l l hypothesis t h a t male

112

86

198

Preference f o r hygiene

Preference f o r motivators

TOTAL

workers would not have a higher preference f o r Herzberg's * For computation of XL, See Appendix V,

38

40

78

150

126

276

m o t i v a t o r s t h a n t h e female workers ; and r e j e c t t h e

r e s e a r c h hypo thes i s .

4.4.4 T E S T O F H Y P O T H E S I S FOUR

T h i s h y p o t h e s i s p o s t u l a t e s t h a t :

WORKERS WHO HAVE P U T I N LONG S E H V I C Z

I N T H E BANK WOULD P H E F E I I HEHZBEHG ' S

M O T I V A T O R S THAN WORKERS WITH L E S S E R

TENURE, WHO WOULD P R E F E R H Y G I E N E

F A C T O R S .

T h i s h y p o t h e s i s would be t e s t e d u s i n g t h e d a t a

g e n e r a t e d by q u e s t i o n 18. Table 10 shows t h e

d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s e s o b t a i n e d .

Table 1 0 Employee A t t i t u d e t o Mot iva t iona l

V a r i a b l e s by Length of Se rv i ce i n t h e Bank

-- - -

Job f a c t o r

S a l a r y

J o b s e c u r i t y

Company P o l i c y & Admin.

Supe rv i so r ' s A t t i t u d e

Promot i on

S t a t u s

Working Environment

Recogni t ion

H e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Work i t s e l f

!\chievement

Advancement

Lennth of Se rv i ce

LONG NO. % o f

t o t a l

SHORT No0 % of

t o t a l T o t a l

Merging t h e s e r e sponse s i n t o Herzberg l s hygiene

and mo t iva to r f a c t o r s , w e have t a b l e 10.7,

Table 10.1 Summary of Employee A t t i t u d e t o

Mot iva t iona l and Hygiene f a c t o r s

A t t i t u d e t o Mot iva t iona l

f a c t o r s

P re fe r ence f o r hygiene

P re fe r ence f o r

mo t iva to r s

TOTAL

t o t a l t o t a l T o t a l

Table 10.1 shows t h a t approximately 31 p e r c e n t o f

t h e respondents who have pu t i n long pe r iod o f s e r v i c e

i n t h e bank showed pre fe rence f o r hygiene a s a g a i n s t

approximately 63 pe rcen t ob t a ined by workers who have

p u t i n s h o r t pe r iod of s e r v i c e . . On t h e o t h e r hand,

p r e f e r ence f o r mot iva tors was approximately 69 p e r c e n t

and 37 pe rcen t i n favour of respondents who have pu t i n

long s e r v i c e .

To t e s t a s s o c i a t i o n between l e n g t h of s e r v i c e 2

and a t t i t u d e t o mo t iva t i ona l f a c t o r s , c h i - square ( X )

t e s t was app l i ed a s i n d i c a t e d below:

Nu l l hypothes i s , Ho : Workers who have p u t i n l ong

s e r v i c e p e r i o d i n t h e bank

would n o t p r e f e r Herzberg 's

mot iva tors more t h a n workers

wi th l e s s e r t enu re , who would

p r e f e r hygiene f a c t o r s .

A l t e r n a t i v e hypothes i s ,

HI : Workers who have p u t i n l o n g

s e r v i c e i n t h e bank would p r e f e r

Herzberg 's mot iva tors t h a n workers

w i t h l e s s e r tenure .

Length of Serv ice

I Lo% I Shor t I T o t a l

P re f e r ence f o r Hygiene

P re fe r ence f o r mot iva tors I

TOTAL I 61

1 9

42

21 5

136

79

276

155

121

Degree of freedom = 2 2 ) = 1

Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e = 5 pe rcen t i . e 0005

C r i t i c a l va lue

Computed X 2

UKISION

Since t h e computed x2 is g r e a t e r t h a n t h e

c r i t i c a l value a t 5 pe rcen t l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e

and One degree of freedom, we accep t t h e r e s e a r c h

hypothesis which s t a t e s t h a t workers who have p u t

i n . l o n g s e r v i c e w o u l d . p r e f e r mot iva tors more' t h a n

workers t h a t have pu t i n s h o r t s e r v i c e .

4.4.5 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS FIVE

This hypothes i s p o s t u l a t e s t h a t :

WORKERS WITH H l G H EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

WOULU HAVE A HIGHER PHEFERLNCE FOR

HEHZBERC'S MOTIVATORS THAN WORKEHS

WITH LESS EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Hypothesis f i v e would a l s o be t e s t e d us ing t h e

in format ion generated by ques t ion 18. Table 11 g i v e s

t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f responses obtained.

Table 11 Employee A t t i t u d e t o Mot iva t iona l Var iab les /

f a c t o r s by l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n a l

Attainment

Job f a c t o r

S a l a r y

Job s e c u r i t y

Company p o l i c y & Admin.

Superv i sors A t t i t u d e

Promotion

S t a t u s

Working gnv ironment

Recogni t ion

H e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Work i t s e l f

Achievement

Advancement

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL H 1 G H

No. % of t o t a l

LOW

No. o/o of t o t a :

T o t a l

' ~ r o u p i n g t h e above responses i n t o Herzberg l s

hygiene and mot ivator f a c t o r s , we have t h e r e s u l t

i n t a h l e 11 .I

Table I1 .I Summary of Mot iva t iona l Var iab les by Educa t iona l Level

Preference f o r hygiene 67.3 1 162

A t t i t u d e t o p lo t iva t iona l f a c t o r s

Educa t iona l L,evel

Pre fe rence f o r mo t iva to r s

Table 11.1 r e v e a l s t h a t p r e f e r ence . f o r hygiene

HIGH No. % of

t o t a l

TOTAL

was approximately 35 pe rcen t f o r t h o s e wi th h igh

LOW No . ./, of T o t a l

t o t a

I

48 64.9

educa t ion and approximately 67 ' pe rcen t f o r t hose

74 I 0 0

w i t h low l e v e l educat ion. Also t h e t a b l e shows- tha t

66 32.7

p re f e r ence f o r mot iva tors were approximately 65 p e r c e n t

11 4

202 1 00

f o r t hose w i th h igh e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a inmen t whi le t h o s e

276

w i t h low educa t ion ob t a ined on ly 33 pe rcen t approximately ,

To t e s t a s s o c i a t i o n between the v a r i a b l e s

( educa t iona l l e v e l and a t t i t u d e t o mo t iva t i ona l

2 f a c t o r s ) , c h i - square ( X ) t e s t was employed.

Null hypothesis, Ho : Workers w i t h high educat ional

l e v e l would no t have higher

preference f o r Herzberg's

motivators than workers with

l e s s educat ional a t ta inment .

Al t e rna t ive hypothesis, HI : Workers with high educat ional

l e v e l would have a higher

preference f o r Herzberg 's

motivators than workers with

l e s s educat ional attainment.

Att i tude t o motivational/ f a c t o r s

Preference f o r hygiene

Preference f o r motivators

TOTAL

Tota l =I==

Degree of freedom = 1

Level o f s ign i f i cance - - 5 percent

C r i t i c a l value = 3.84

Computed X' = 23,14

DECISION

The c r i t i c a l value a t 5 percent l e v e l of

s ign i f i cance f o r the 'X 2

freedom is 3.84. Since

of 23.14 is higher than

based on one degree of

the observed value of xL 3.84, we do not accept t h e

n u l l hypo thes i s of no a s s o c i a t i o n n e i t h e r do we

r e j e c t t h e r e s e a r c h hypothes i s , The observed

d a t a p rov ides some evidence t o suppor t t h e e x i s t e n c e

of a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e l e v e l of educa t ion and

Herzberg Is motivators . We t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t

t h e a l t e r n a t i v e hypothes i s s t a t i n g t h a t Itworkers

wi th h igh e d u c e t i o n a l l e v e l would have a h igher

p r e f e r ence f o r Herzberg t s mo t iva to r s t h a n workers

w i th l e s s educa t ionN is accepted.

4 - 5 APPIIAISAL OF' THE MOTIVATlONAL PACKAGES OFFERED

BY THE ACB LTD. TO THE EMPLOYEES

Having t e s t e d and d i s cus sed t h e hypothes i s

formulated i n t h i s s t udy , t h e w r i t e r would, i n

keepin!: wi th t h e s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s of t h e s tudy ,

examine and a p p r a i s e i n t h i s s e c t i o n t h e mo t iva t i ona l

package o f f e r e d by t h e bank t o i t s employees w i th a

view t o a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e i r agreement o r o therwise

wi th t h e i r workers needs.

To ach ieve t h i s , q u e s t i o n 19 a s w e l l a s o r a l

i n t e r v i e w wi th t h e management would s e r v e t o gene ra t e

t h e d a t a r equ i r ed , The o r a l i n t e rv i ew sought t o

i d e n t i f y t h e mo t iva t i ona l package o f f e r e d by t h e bank

t o t h e employees. Table 12 shows t h e r e s u l t obta ined.

Table 1 2 Mot iva t iona l Package o f f e r e d by t h e bank

t o employees

These a r e :

Promotion p rospec t s

Good s a l a r y

Medical f a c i l i t y

S o c i a l and Rec rea t i ona l f a c i l i t i e s

Canteen Services/Luncheon Voucher

Tra in ing and s t a f f educa t ion

Good work environment

Christmas bonus

Long s e r v i c e awards

Pension Scheme

~ o u s i n ~ / t r a n s p o r t al lowance

C a r / ~ o t o r cyc l e l oan

Recogni t ion

Loan f a c i l i t y

Employee Counsel l ing

In ques t i on 19, t h e respondents were asked t o

i n d i c a t e t h e f a c t o r s t h e bank should o f f e r them i n

o r d e r Lo make them work harder . Table 1 3 shows t h e

r e s u l t obta ined:

Table 13 Piot ivat ional Package needed by t h e Employees

Kespondents

Promotion

Good S a l a r y

Medical f a c i l i t i e s

S o c i a l and Rec rea t i ona l f a c i l i t i e s

Canteen ~e rv i ce /Luncheon Voucher

T r a i n i n g and S t a f f educa t ion

S t a f f 3us

Good working environment

Chris tmas bonus

Long s e r v i c e awards

Pension Scheme

~ o u s i n g / t r a n s p o r t al lowance

Car/motor cyc le al lowance

Recogni t ion

S p e c i f i c l oan f a c i l i t y

Employee c o u n s e l l i n g

No. - 276

276

276

259

276

224

209

197

276

170

2.41

276

118

1 96

276

241

% of t o t a l

100

100

100

94

1 00

8 1

75

69

1 00

62

87

100

43

7 1

100

87

Table 13 r evea l ed t h a t c e r t a i n mo t iva t i ona l

packages such a s promotion, good s a l a r y , medical ,

e t c . were needed by a l l employees, hence scored one

hundred percen t , Others were needed by t h e m a j o r i t y

o f t h e respondents a s evidenced by t h e h igh percen tage

ob ta ined by such f a c t o r s .

A comparison of t a b l e s 12 and 1 3 shows t h a t

one mo t iva t i ona l package r e q u i r e d bu t n o t y e t

provided by t h e management of t h e bank i s s t a f f bus,

Also, respondents viewed some of t h e e x i s t i n g

mo t iva t i ona l packages a s inadequate. Table 14

expressed t h e i r op in ion on t h o s e f a c t o r s .

Table 14 Employee Opinion on inadequacy of some

mot iva t i ona l packages

Adequate Inadequate No Opinion

S a l a r y

% of % of % of T o t a l No.. t o t a l - - No. t o t a l - No. - t o t a l

63 22.8 157 54.7 62 2 276

Promotion 59 21.4 137 49.6 8 0 29,O 276

~ r a i n i n g / S t a f f 42 18.7 177 79.1 5 .,2,2 224 educa t ion

Table 1 4 above shows t h a t 54.7 p e r c e n t and 49.6

pe rcen t of respondents i n d i c a t e d t h e inadequacy of s a l a r y

and promotion r e s p e c t i v e l y , whi le 79.1 pe rcen t of

respondents r evea l ed t h e inadequacy of t r a i n i n g /

s t a f f educat ion.

From t h e above a n a l y s i s , one can conclude

t h a t t h e mo t iva t i ona l package o f f e r e d by t h e bank

s i g n i f i c a n t l y agreed wi th workers needs.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AN11 CONCW

INTRODUCTION

I n t h i s chap te r , t h e w r i t e r would t ake i n t o

c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e o b j e c t i v e s and hypothes i s t e s t e d i n

t h e s tudy and t h e r e s u l t s ob ta ined , and on t h e b a s i s

of t h e s e make recommendations and conclus ion.

5.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The f i v e hypothes i s t e s t e d i n t h i s s t udy produced

t h e fo l l owing r e s u l t s :

Hypothesis I : t h a t t h e s e n i o r s t a f f o f ACB Ltd,

would p r e f e r Herzberg 's mo t iva to r s f o r i nc rea sed

performance more t h a n t h e j u n i o r s t a f f . Data i n

suppor t of t h i s r evea l ed t h a t 84 pe rcen t of t h e

j u n i o r s t a f f o r o p e r a t i v e s had p re f e r ence f o r hygiene

whi le on ly 34 pe rcen t o f t h e s e n i o r s t a f f showed

p re fe r ence f o r hygiene. A s r ega rds mot iva tors ,

approximately 66 pe rcen t of t h e s e n i o r s t a f f

i n d i c a t e d pre fe rence f o r mot iva tors a s a g a i n s t t h e

j u n i o r s t a f f p re fe rence of only 16 pe rcen t , a d i f f e r e n c e

o f 50 percen t .

1~ break down of t h e p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h e j u n i o r

s t a f f showed t h a t s a l a r y , r e c o g n i t i o n and job

s e c u r i t y were placed first, second and t h i r d wi th

70.1 pe rcen t , 9.3 pe rcen t and 8.2 percen t r e s p e c t i v e l y .

For t h e s e n i o r s t a f f , achievement came f irst wi th 28

pe rcen t , work i t s e l f was p laced second whi le s a l a r y

fol lowed a t t h e t h i r d p o s i t i o n wi th 24.4 percen t .

Hypothesis 2: t h a t marr ied workers would p r e f e r

hygiene f a c t o r s t han unmarried workers. Th is r e s u l t

emerged from t h e in format ion t h a t 66.3 pe rcen t of

married workers i n d i c a t e d t h e i r p r e f e r ence f o r hygiene

whi le approximately 46 pe rcen t of t h e workers who a r e

unmarried opted f o r same, On t h e o t h e r hand, p r e f e r ence

f o r mot iva tors were 54 pe rcen t and 33.7 pe rcen t f o r

s i n g l e and married workers r e s p e c t i v e l y .

A break down of t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s i n d i c a t e t h a t

f o r t h e tnarried, t h e most important f a c t o r t h a t could

induce them t o i nc rea sed performance is s a l a r y , having

been scored approximately 31 percen t . Promotion and

job s e c u r i t y were p laced second and t h i r d r e s p e c t i v e l y .

For t h e workers who a r e unmarried, p r e f e r ence i n t h e

o r d e r of occurrence were f o r s a l a r y , work i t s e l f and

advancement which scored approximately 17 percen t ,

16 pe rcen t and 13 percen t r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Hypothesis 3: t h a t male workers would n o t have a

h i g h e r p r e f e r ence f o r Herzberg l s mot iva tors t h a n t h e

female workers.

Data i n suppor t of t h i s hypothes i s r evea l ed t h a t

p r e f e r ence f o r hygiene were 57 pe rcen t and 49 pe rcen t

f o r male and female workers r e s p e c t i v e l y . On t h e o t h e r

hand, p r e f e r ence f o r mot iva tors were 51 pe rcen t and 43

p e r c e n t f o r female and male workers r e spec t ive ly .

A run down of t h e composit ion of t h e s e percen tages

shows t h a t s a l a r y was p l aced f i rs t by both sexes. Other

job f a c t o r s t h o t appeared wi th s i g n i f i c a n t percen tages

incl-ude job s e c u r i t y , promotion and advancement,

Hypothesis 4: t h a t workers who have been i n t h e

employment o f t h e bank f o r long would p r e f e r Herzberg l s

mot iva tors . This ca t ego ry o f workers s co red advancement,

work i t s e l f , r e c o g n i t i o n and s a l a r y a s t h e i r main

p re f e r ences . Promotion and job s e c u r i t y were a l s o

s i g n i f i c a n t t o them a s evidenced by 6.6 pe rcen t each

of them was scored.

Hypothesis 5 : t h a t workers w i th h igh e d u c a t i o n a l

a t t a i n m e n t showed p re fe r ence f o r Herzberg I s mot iva tors

t o t h e hygienes. While t h e workers w i th h igh educa t ion

revea led t h e i r p r e f e r ence by s c o r i n g mot iva tors

approximately 65 pe rcen t , t h e l e s s educated scored

it on ly 32.7 percen t . Although p re fe r ence of t h e

h igh ly educated was f o r mo t iva to r s , s a l a r y and promotion

a l s o were seen t o bc s i g n i f i c a n t wi th approximately

1 2 pe rcen t and 10 pe rcen t r e s p e c t i v e l y ,

F i n a l l y , t h e mo t iva t i ona l package o f f e r e d by t h e

bank t o i ts employees was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n

agreement wi th t h e needs of t h e workers. However, one

f a c t o r t h a t was n o t i n agreement was t h e non-provision

of s t a f f bus t o t h e employees, which could be a r ea son

f o r non-punctual i ty t o work of some workers.

5.3 HECOMMENDAT IONS

In view of t h e f i n d i n g s of t h i s s tudy , t h e fo l lowing I

recommendations a r e p r o f e r r e d : i

F i r s t l y , t h a t t he management should pay a t t e n t i o n

t o t h e i n t r i n s i c o r mot iva tor needs of t h e s e n i o r and

educated workers a s such a t t e n t i o n would l e a d t o commit-

ment and s u p e r i o r performance on t h e i r p a r t ,

SerqndZy, t Q a t any ~ f f o r t t o ~ n t i v s + , e t h e 3 j u n i o ~ s t a f f o r o p e r a t i v e s should add re s s more t h e hygiene f a c t o r s .

Thi rd ly , t h a t t hose f a c t o r s r equ i r ed f o r increased

perforrfance by t h e workers hu t which a r e no t c u r r e n t l y

o f f e r e d by t h e bank, o r which a r e o f f e r e d b u t a r e

inadequa te , be addressed. A performance p l a n could be

reached wi th t h e workers t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t improving

t h e l e v e l o f such f a c t o r s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n should be

marched wi th i nc rea sed performance.

Four th ly , t h a t management should make reward,

e s p e c i a l l y monetary and r e l a t e d rewards, con t ingen t on

s u p e r i o r performance. Th i s w i l l s e r v e t o provide a l i n k

between d e s i r e d job f ac to r / r eward and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

success .

F i n a l l y , t h a t managers should no t app ly Herzberg 's

p roposa l s i n an a t t empt t o mot ivate t h e i r subo rd ina t e s

b u t should employ an a p p r o p r i a t e mix of mot iva tors and

hygienes.

CONCLUSION

Based on t h e above f i n d i n g s , we can conclude

t h a t t h i s s t udy has provided l i t t l e suppor t t o Herzberg 's I

\\.

p o s t u l a t i o n / t h e o r y , even though t h e s e n i o r workers and

t h o s e t h a t a r e h i g h l y educated showed p re fe r ence f o r

Herzberg1s mot ivators . The s tudy has drawn a t t e n t i o n

t o t h e i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y of monetary i n c e n t i v e s i n worker

m ~ t i v a t ~ i o n . This a t t e n t i o n was revea led by t h e f a c t

t h a t s a l a r y , promotion and job s e c u r i t y appeared s i g n i -

f i c a n t l y i n t h e p re fe rences o f workers i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s

i nc lud ing t h e s e n i o r and t h e educated ones. This means

t h a t mot ivat ing an average Niger ian worker would involve

a mix of hygiene and mot iva tors i n a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l s ,

Consequently, we can conclude t h a t i n genera l , Herzberg's

p o s t u l a t i o n t h a t on ly t h e mot iva tors mot ivate a worker

is not a p p l i c a b l e i n Niger ian work environment,

REFERENCES

Adarns, J. S. and Jacobson, P. R. ( 1 9 6 4 ) ~ "Ef fec t s o f Wage I n e q u a l i t i e s on Work Q u a l i t y N J ~ u r n a l of Applied Psychology, No. 6 ' / .

Albers , H. H. (1961), P r i n c i p l e s o f Organ iza t ion and Management. New York: John Wiley,

A lde r f e r , C. P, (1 972). Ex i s t ence , r e l a t e d n e s s and growth: human needs i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s ,

Al len, L, A. (1964), The Management P ro fe s s ion New York: McGraw - H i l l .

Al len , L, A. (1973), P r o f e s s i o n a l Management: New Concepts 'and Proven P r a c t i c e s o England: Mc Graw - H i l l .

Armco 1301icies (1 91 9). Armco S t e e l Corporat ion Middle town, Ohio, December,

Beach, D. S. (1975). Personnel : The Management of People a t Work. New York: Macmillan

Berkowitz, L. (1 969). t lSoc ia l Mot ivat ionN, Hand book of S o c i a l Psychology ~ e w m Addlson - Wesley.

Elok,Sitt, H. H. and Behling, 0 , (1972): "Defensive Mechanisms a s a n A l t e r n a t e Explana t ion of Herzberg l s Motivator - Hygiene R e s u l t s H , J o u r n a l of ! Applied Psychology, v o l e 36 1

9 no. 1 , January.

Brown, J. S. (1961), The Motivat ion o f Behaviour mew York: Mc Craw - H i l l ,

Campbell , J. P. (1970), Manager i a l Uehaviour, Performance a n d J i f f e c t i v e n e s s , New York: Mc Graw - Hill,

C a r r e l , M. Fi. and D i t t r i c h , J, E. ( 1 9 7 8 ) ~ "Equi ty Theory: The Recent L i t e r a t u r e , Methodo log ica l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and New D i r e c t i o n s u Academy o f Management Review, A p r i l ,

Chruden, H. J. and Sherman, A. We (1976). R e a d i n ~ s i n Personnel . Managemen e a t t i : Sou th West P u b l i s h i n g Company.

C o l e , G . A . (1986). P e r s o n n e l Management : Theory and P r a c t i c e . Hampshire: D. P. P u b l i c a t i o n s Ltd,

Donel ly , J. H . ; Gibson, J. L , ; Ivancev ich , J. M , (1984) Fundamentals of Management, Texas: B u s i n e s s P u b l i c a t i o n s .

E j i o f o r , P i t a (1978), v S o l u t i o n s t o N i g e r i a n s Bad A t t i t u d e t o Worktt, Management i n N i g e r i a , December.

Feeney, E. J. (1978). " P r o d u c t i v i t y Gains from a P a t on t h e Backw. Bus iness Week, January .

G u e s t D. (1984). "What is New Sn Moti.vationIt P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l , Vol. 72, May - Ju ly .

G u l l e t , ' C . R e and Re i sen , R . F. (1975) , W e h a v i o u r M o d i f i c a t i o n : A Cont ingency Approach t o Employee Pe r fo rmanceu , P e r s o n n e l Journa l - , A p r i l .

1 37

H a l l , D. T. and Nougiern, K. (1968). llAn examination of Maslowfs Need Hierarchy i n an organiza- t i o n a l s e t t ingl1, ~ r ~ a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 3, No. 1.

HerzSerg, F. (1966). Work and t h e Nature o f Man. Cleveland: World Publ i sh ing Company.

Herzberg, I?. (1968). Ifone More Time: How uo You Motivate employee^?^^ , Havard Business Review, January - February.

HerzSerg, I?; ( ~ a u s n e r , B . ; and Synderman, B. (1959) The Motivation t o Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hicks, H. G. and G u l l e t , C. K. (1976). Mqna ement Singapore: MC Craw - H+

Hinton, B. L. (1968). "An Empir ica l I n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e Herzberg Methodology and Two - F a c t o r Theoryl1, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance, Vole 3 , NO. 3 , August.

K i l l i a n , H. (1981). Managers must lead. New York: Amacom.

King, N o (1970). " C l a r i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of t h e Two - F a c t o r Theoryff, Psycholog ica l B u l l e t i n . Vol. 74. NO. 1 ,

Koontz, H.; OIDonnell. C.: and Weihri.ch. H e (1980),

Lawler, E. E. and

Mana ement. Tokyo: MC raw- - '

in+-

S u t t l e , J. L. (1972). I1A Causal C o r r e l a t i o n T e s t o f t h e Need - Hierarchy Conceptu. Organ iza t i ona l Behaviour - - and Human Performance, Vol. '/, NO. 2 , Apr i l .

L e a v i t t , H. J. (1964).

L i k e r t , ti. (1967).

Maslow, A. H . (1954).

Mc Gregor, D. (1960).

Morse, N . C. and Weiss,

Myers, M. S, (1964),

M a n a ~ e r i a l Psychology. I l l i n o i s : t h i c a g o U n i v e r s i t y Press ,

The Human Organizat ion. New York: 'Mc Graw - H i l l .

Mot ivs t ion and Personal it y, New York: Harper and liow.

The Human Side of E n t e r p r i s e , hew York: Mc Graw - H i l l .

H. S. (1955), "The f u n c t i o n and meaning of work and t h e job", American S o c i o l o g i c a l Heview, 001. 20.

I1Who Are Your Motivated Workers?I1, Havard Business Review, Vol. 42, No, 1 , January - February.

OIRrien. R. M. and Dickson, A. M . (1972). ~ n t r o d u c t i b n t o - I n d u s t r i a l Rehaviour Modif ica t ion. New -

Pork: Pergomon Press .

Okpara, E. (1984). "How can we motivate t h e Niger ian Worker?" Contained i n Onah and E j i o f o r : Managing t h e Niger ian Worker, Ibadan: Longman,

Osuagwu, H. (1984). I1Theories o f mot iva t ion and t h e Niger ian Environment, Contained i n Onah and E j i o f o r : Managing t h e [\ Niger ia Worker, Ibadan: Longman.

P o r t e r , L , . H . (1962). I1Job A t t i t u d e s i n Management: P e r c e i v e d Uef i c i e n c i e s i n Need F u l f i l m e n t a s a F u n c t i o n of J o b L,evelI1, J o u r n a l o f Appl j~ed Psychology Vol. 46, No. 6 ,

P o r t e r , I,. W. and Lawler, E. F. (1968). Managerial A t t i t u d e s and Performance,

I l l i n o i s : I r w i n Dorsey,

S k i n n e r , R. F. (1969),

Vroom, V. H , (1964),

P e r s o n n e l Management f o r t h e s m a l l e r Com~anv: A Hands on . - -

Manual. Amacon, American

Management A s s o c i a t i o n .

C o n t i n g e n c i e s of Re-inforcement: A T h e o r e t i c a l Analysis . New York: a p p l e t o n - Century.

Work and Mot ivat ion . New York: John Niley,

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

The sample s i z e f o r primary d a t a was ob ta ined

us ing t h e sample s i z e formula below, a t a conf idence

l e v e l of 95 pe rcen t ( Z = 1.96) and t o l e r a b l e e r r o r

where,

n = Sample s i z e

Z = Value of conf idence l e v e l A

P = Propor t ion of workers who p r e f e r *

hygiene f a c t o r s

A I-P = Propor t i on of workers i n f avour of

mot iva tors

e = L i m i t of t o l e r a b l e e r r o r .

* P. a r r i v e d a t a f t e r conduct ing a sample t e s t

o f twenty workers.

S u b s t i t u t i n g ,

** The sample s i z e of 323 was drawn from a popu la t i on

of 6,490 workers.

APPENDIX I1

C a l c u l a t i o n of t o t a l p o i n t s a v a i l a b l e f o r hygiene

f a c t o r s - t a b l e 6.0

J u n i o r

S t a f f

S e n i o r

!;taff

No. of Respon- d e n t s

Maximum p o i n t a v a i l . a b l e

P e r q u e s t i o n

No. of q u e s t i o n s asked

T o t a l p o i n t s

C a l c u l a t i o n of T o t a l p o i n t s a v a i l a b l e f o r mot iva tor f a c t o r s - Table 6.1

Maximum

p o i n t

Category

o f s t a f f

d e n t s

2

No, of I T o t a l No, of

Respon-

a v a i l a b l e Pe r

q u e s t i o n

3

J u n i o r S t a f f

Sen io r

194 5

APPENDIX I11

PROCEDURE FOR O B T A I N I N G C H I - SQUARE (x*)

TEST OF HYPOTHESIS 1 : The s e n i o r s t a f f of ACB Ltd

would p r e f e r Herzberg I s mo t iva to r s

more t h a n t h e j u n i o r s t a f f , who

would p r e f e r hygiene f a c t o r s .

N.B:- The c i r c l e d f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t t h e c e l l - numbers.

S t a t u s of Respondents

C H I - SQUARE (x') FORMULA

where,

0 is t h e observed f requency

E is t h e expected frequency.

Mot iva t iona l Va r i ab l e s

Pre fe rence f o r hygiene

Preference f o r mot iva tors

TOTAL .

T o t a l

191

85

276

L

J u n i o r

163 0

3 1 @

194

Senior

28 0

54 @

82

CALCULATION OF EXPECTED FREQUENCY, E

formula : E = Column t o t a l X How t o t a l Grand t o t a l

CALCULATION OF CRITICAL VALUE

(i) DECREE OF FREEDOM, V

formula V = ( r - I ) (c - I )

where: r = number of rows

c = number o f columns

4 . V = ( 2 ( I ) = 1 degree of freedom

(ii) LEVELOF SIGNIFICANCE, = 5 p e r c e n t ( i , e 0005)

2 . . C r i t i c a l Va lue = X ~ , v

2 CALCULATION OF C H I - SQUARE: X (observed va lue)

APPENUIX IV

CALCULATION OF COMPUTED C H I - SQUARE (x2)

Prefe rence f o r hygiene

Pre fe rence f o r mot iva tors

Sen io r J u n i o r T o t a l

N.R:- The c i r c l e d f i g u r e s a r e t h e c e l l numbers, -

C H I - SQUARE (x2) FORMULA

where: 0 i s t h e observed frequency

E is t h e expected f r equency

CALCULATION OF EXPECTED FREQUENCY, 17,

formula: E = Column t o t a l x How t o t a l Grand t o t a l

Cell I : E - - 7546 x 16610 25200 = 4974

CALCULATION OF CKPTICAL VALUE

(i) Degree o f freedom, V

formula: V = (r-I )(c-I )

(ii) Level of s ignif icance, = 5% (i.e 0.05)

. . . C r i t i c a l Value 0.05, 1

2 CALCULATION OF C H I - SQUARE, X (observed va lue )

Ce l l -

APPENDIX V

2 CAl..,CUL.ATION OF COMPUTED C H I - SQUARE (X )

N.B:- The c i r c l e d f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t t h e c e l l numbers -

Sex o f Respondents

C H I - SQUARE (x2)

E

CALCULATION OF EXPECTED FREQUENCY, E

T o t a 1

150

I26

formula : E = Column t o t a l x How t o t a l Grand t o t a l

Female

38

40 4

P r e f e r e n c e f o r hygiene

C e l l 1 : E - - 198 x 150

276

Male

112

P r e f e r e n c e f o r m o t i v a t o r s 863

CRITICAL VALUE:

CALCULATION OF CHI - SQUAHE (x') (observed V a l u e )

C e l l - 0 - E - ( 0 - E ) ~

School of Post-graduate S tud i e s Department o f Management U n i v e r s i t y of Niger ia ENUCU CAMPUS.

Dear Sir/Madam,

EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE

Th i s r e s e a r c h is designed t o unders tand t h e Niger ian worker b e t t e r . Its core e f f o r t f ocuses on i d e n t i f y i n g t h e p re f e r ences of t h e Niger ian worker f o r v a r i o u s work outcomes t h a t w i l l s pu r him t o s u p e r i o r performance,

The r e s e a r c h i s fundamental ly f o r academic purpose, though i t s f i n d i n g s may be of mutual b e n e f i t t o both t h e workers and t h e employers.

P l ea se answer t h e fo l lowing q u e s t i o n s hones t ly . There a r e no r i g h t o r wrong answers. Whatever i n fo rma t ion g iven w i l l be t r e a t e d i n s t r i c t conf idence. Your nnme and i d e n t i t y a r e n o t r equ i r ed ,

Thank you f o r your co-operat ion.

Yours s i n c e r e l y ,

C H I K A ONONIWU.

INSTRUCTION

P lease t i c k "good" ( d ) i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e box f o r t h e o p t i o n of your cho ice , and rank i s t , 2nd, jrd, etc . , t o answers where necessary .

SECT I O N A : PFXSONAL DATA

1, Sex:

2, M a r i t a l S t a t u s :

( a S ing l e ( b Married

i v o c e j d Separa ted

Widowed

3. Level of Education:

C e r t i f i c a t e (

4. Rank i n t h e Bank:

Jun ior S t a f f Sen io r S t a f f

5. P l ea se s t a t e your p o s t i n t h e Bank:

6 , How many years have you been working i n ACB Ltd?

St rong ly Agree Agree

14, A s u c c e s s f u l complet ion of a d i f f i c u l t job p rov ides a wcrker w i t h a s ense o f zccompli- shment 2nd i n t e r n 2 1 s ~ t . i s f z c t l o n which s p u r s him t o s u p e r i c r per - formance. ( ) ( 1

15. C r e d i t 2nd p r a i s e f o r a i c b well done w i l l make a worker Pepea t 2nd improve on e z r l i e r performarice ( 1 ( 1

76. The s a t i s f a c t i o n a worker d e r i v e s from t h e work done a f f e c t s o r d e t e r a i n e s t h e z e a l t o work h z r d e r . ( 1 ( 1

17. G r a z t i n g a worker job freedom ( i . e , e x e r c i s e o f i n i t i a t i v e w i t h l e s s c o n t r o l ) and accounta- b i l i t y f o r own wcrk makes t h e pe r son t o work ha rde r ,

( 1 ( )

D i s s Ytrsng-

N e u t r a l Agree - 1.y D i s - ; :<ree

SECTSON C : COMPARISON OF J O B FACTORS

P lease r a t e t h e fol.l.owing o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rewards/ job f a c t o r s i n t h e o r d e r i n which t h e y can make a person worker harder ,

Assign (1 ) t o t h e f a c t o r t h a t w i l l make a person work h a r d e s t , ( 2 ) t o t h e nex t f a c t o r , ( 3 ) t o t h e t h i r d f a c t o r , e t c . , u n t i l a l l t h e (13) f a c t o r s have been ra ted .

(NOTE: Hating should be i n o rde r of p re fe rence . No two f a c t o r s should have t h e same ra t i .ng . For example: Housing (I), Transpor t (2 ) . e t c . )

( i ) R e t t e r s a l a r y o r wages ( i n c l u d i n g f r i n g e knenefits. ) (

( i i ) Job Secu r i t y , (

( i i i ) Favourable company a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . (

( i v ) Supe rv i so r ' s a t t i t u d e , ( 1

( v ) C r e d i t and p r a i s e f o r a job w e l l done. ( 1

( v i ) Job f reedom/responsi ' i l i ty f o r own work, ( 1

( v i i ) Nature of S a t i s f a c t i o n from work done. (

( v i i i ) li s u c c e s s f u l completion of a d i f f i c u l t t a s k , ( )

( i x ) P o s s i b i l i t y of advancement i n t h e Bank. (

(x) Good people t o work with. ( 1 ( x i ) Promotion t o a job of h ighe r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( )

( x i i ) S t a t u s f a c i l i t i e s , e,g., o f f i c i a l c a r , pe r sona l s e c r e t a r y , e t c , ( 1

( x i i i ) B e t t e r working environment, i nc lud ing a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g , o f f i c e f u r n i s h i n g , e t c , ( 1

Please t i c k which of t h e fo l lowing f ac to r s / r ewards t h e Bank should o f f e r t o i t s employees i n o rde r t o make them work harder . I f a f a c t o r is c u r r e n t l y o f f e r e d by t h e Bank, s t a t e t h e adequacy o r o therwise i n t h e box provided.

No Fac to r / Ade- Inade- Opi- Reward qua te qua t e n ion

( i ) Promot ion prospects . ( 1 0 0 ( 1

( i i ) ~ o o d s a l a r y . ( > ( > ( ( 1 ( i i i ) Medical

f a c i l i t i e s . ( > 0 0 ( 1 ( i v ) S o c i a l and r e c r e -

t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s ( ) O F ) ( 1 ( v ) Canteen s e r v i c e s /

Luncheon Vouchers. ( ) ( 1 0 ( 1 ( v i ) T ra in ing an

s t a f f educat ion. ( ) ( > ( I ( 1 ( v i i ) S t a f f Bus. ( ) O O ( 1

( v i i i ) Good working environment, ( 1 0 0 ( 1

( i x ) Christmas Bonus and overt ime allowance. ( 1 0 0 ( 1

( x ) Long-Service Awards , ( 1 0 0 ( 1

( x i ) Pension Scheme ( 1 ( > ( I ( > (xii) Housing and

t r a n s p o r t al lowances, ( 1 ( > ( ) ( )

( x i i i ) ~ a r / ~ o t o r c y c l e Loans. ( 1 0 0 ( 1

F a c t o r / Ade- Inade- No Reward qua te yuate Opinion

(xiv) Chal lenging Work ( 0 0 (

( x v ) Grea t e r autonomy a n d e x e r c i s e of persona l i n i t i a t i v e ( ) O O ( 1

( x Q i ) Recogni t ion o r c r e d i t f o r a job w e l l done, ( > 0 ( 1

( x v i i ) More work-holidays. ( ) > > ( 1

( x v i i i ) General l oan f a c i l i t y . ( ) 0 0 ( )

( x i x ) Employee Counsel l ing. ( ) 0 > ( )

( x x ) Others - Please s p e c i f y :

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AN11 EFFORT.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, J .S . and Jacobson, P. H. (1964), " E f f e c t s of Wage I n e q u a l i t i e s on Work UualityI1, J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, No, 67,

Adams, J. S. (1963). "Toward a n unders tand ing of i n e q u i t y n J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l ~ s y c h o l o g y .

Albers , H . H. (1961 ). P r i n c i p l e s of Organ iza t ion and Management. New York: John Wiley.

A lde r f e r , C . P. (1 972). Ex is tence , r e l a t e d n e s s , and growth: human needs i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s .

Al len, 'L . A. (1964). The Management Professj-on.

New York: Mc Graw - H i l l ,

Al len , L. A. (1973). P r o f e s s i o n a l Management: New Concepts and Proven P r a c t i c e s . England: Mc Graw - H i l l .

Arrnco P o l i c i e s (1 91 9 ) * Arrnco S t e e l Corporat ion Middletown, Ohio, December,

Atkinson, J, W. and Reitman, W. H. (1956). "Performance a s a f u n c t i o n of motive s t r e n g t h and expectancy of goa l a t t a i n m e n t It J o u r n a l of Abnormal A.

Beach, 1>. S. (1975). Personnel : The Management o f People a t Work. New York: Macmillan

I

\<

Berkowitz, L. (1 969). t lSoc ia l Motivat i o n n , Handbook of S o c i a l ~ s y c h o l o ~ ~ . mew York: Addlson - Wesley,

Bo$bi t t , H. H. and Behling, 0. (1972). I1Defensive Mechanisms a s a n A l t e r n a t i v e Explana t ion o f Herzberg1s Motivator - Hygiene Resu l t s t t , Jou rna l of -.-.- A ~ ~ i e d Psych.ology,

,&-._-..AI- Y. I--..- _ ' J o i * 50, ha. '1, January,

Brown, J . S. (1961 ), The Mot iva t ion of Behaviour, New York: Mc Graw - Hill.

Campbell, J . P. (1970), Managerial Behsviour, Performance and E f f e c t i v e n e s s , New York: Mc Craw - 11.

C a r r e l , M. R e and U i t t r i c h , J. E. (1978), ItEquity Theory: The Recent L i t e r a t u r e , Methodologica l Cons ide r a t i ons and New D i r e c t i o n s w . Academy of Management Review, Apr i l ,

Chruden, H. J . and Sherman, A. W. (1976) "Headin .s i n Personne l Management. South W

*: e s t Pub l i sh ing Company.

C l e rk , J. V. (1960). ItMotivation i n work groups: A t e n t a t i v e view1!, Human Organ i za t i ons , Vol. 19.

Cole, G. A. (1986). Pe rsonne l Management: P r a c t i c e , Hampshire:

Donel ly , J , H. Gibson, J. L.; and Ivancevich , J. M. (1984) Fundamentals o f Management. Texas B u s m e s s P u b l ~ c a t i o n s ,

E j i o f o r , P i t a ( 1 9 7 8 ) ~ I1Solut ions t o Niger ians Bad A t t i t u d e t o Workf1 Management i n N ige r i a , December,

Feeney, E, J, (1978). I1Produc t iv i ty Gains from a P a t on t h e Back", Business Week, January ,

F e r s t e r , C. B. and Sk inner , B. F. (1957). Schedules o f r e in forcement . New York: Appleton - Century - C r o f t s , I

i.

Gellerman, S. W , (1963). Mot ivat ion and P r o d u c t i v i t y , New York: American Management Assoc i a t i on ,

Gilmer, B. and Deci, E, (1977). I n d u s t r i a l and Organ iza t i ona l Psychology. New York: Mc Graw - H i l l .

Guest , D. (.1984), I1What is New i n Motivationl1 Personnel Journal. , Vol. 72, Nay - J u l y .

G u l l e t , C. H. and Reisen, H. F. (1975)* I1Behaviour Modif ica t ion: A Contingency

Approach t o Employee Performancell, Personnel Jou rna l , 1Apr i l .

"The i n c e n t i v e c h a r a c t e r of payn I n H. Andrews (1965), ~ a n a ~ e r i a l Comnensation. New York: Mc Graw

Hai re , M. ; G h i s e l l i , E. E.; and P o r t e r , I>. W, (1963). Psycholog ica l r e sea rch on pay: An overview. I n d u s t r i a l Re l a t i ons .

H a l l , D. T. and Nougiam, K, (1968). "An examination of asl low's ~ k e d Hierarchv i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g " , Organi- z a t i o n a l Rehavi.our and Human ..- - -

Performance, Vol. 3, No. I ,

Herzherg, F. (1 966).

Herzberg, F. (1 968).

Work and t h e Nature of Man. a n g - Company,

"One More Time: How Do You Motivate employee^?^^ HzGard Business Review, January - February,

Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; and Synderman, R. (1959). The Motivat ion t o Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hicks , H. G. and G u l l e t , C. R. (1976). Singapore: McGraw -

Hinton, B. L. (1968). "An Empir ical I n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e Herzberg Methodology and Two- Fac to r Theory1), Organ iza t i ona l Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 5, No. 3, August.

Homnns, G . C , (1961). S o c i a l Behaviour: I t ' s e lementar forms. New York: Harcour t , Bruce an

World.

Ke l l e rhe r , K. T. and Gollub, L. H. (1962). ))A review of p o s i t i v e condi t ioned re in forcementv , J o u r n a l o f t h e Experimental Analys is of 'Behaviour.

K i l l i a n , K. (1981). Managers mus t lead. New York: Amacom.

King. N. (1970). " C l a r i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of t h e Two-Factor Theoryw, Psycholog ica l a l l e t i n , Vol. 74, No. 1.

Koontz, 11.; OIL>onnell, C . ; and Weihrich, H. (1980). Management, Tokyo: McCraw - H i l l .

Lawler, E. and P o r t e r , L. (1967). "Antecedents o f E f f e c t i v e Managerial PerformanceN, Organ iza t i ona l Behaviour and Human Performance, New York: McCraw - H i l l ,

L,awler, E. E , and S u t t l e , J. L. (1972). llA c a u s a l C o r r e l a t i o n T e s t of t h e Need- Hierarchy Concept I t O rgan iza t i ona l Behaviour and Human Performance, vo l . 'I, No. 2, Apri l .

L e a v i t t , H . J. (1964). Managerial Psychology: I l l i n o i s : Chicago u n i v e r s i t y Press .

L i k e r t , R. (1967). The Human Organizat ion. New York: Mc Craw-Hill.

Marks, L. M e (1982). "Conducting a n Employee A t t i t u d e SurveyN Personnel J o u r n a l , Vol. 61, Ju ly .

Maslow, A. H. (1943). "A Theory of Human Mot iva t ionM, Psycholog ica l Hevi-ew, Vol. 50.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Mot ivat ion and P e r s o n a l i t y New york: Harper and How.

M a r r i o t t , H. (1 957). I ncen t ive Payment systems: A review of r e s e a r c h and opinion. Occupat ional Psychology.

The Human Side of En te rp r i s e . mew York: Mc Graw - H i l l .

Morse, N. C. and Weiss, H. Y. (1955). "The f u n c t i o n and meaning of work and t h e jobw, American Soc io log i ca l Review, Vol. 20.

Myers, M. S. (1964), "Who A t i e Your Motivated Workers?lt, . - Havard Business Review, Vol. 42,

No. 1 , January - February.

and Dickson, A. M. (I %"7). I n t r o d u c t i o n t o I n d u s t r i a l Behaviour Modif ica t ion. mew York: Pergomon Press.

Okpara, E. (1984). "How can we mot ivate t h e Niger ian W ~ r k e r ? ~ Contained i n Onah and E j i o f o r : Managing t h e Nigerian Worker, Ibadan: Longman,

Osuagwu, H. (7984). l lTheories of mot ivat ion and t h e Niger ian environment l1 Contained i n 0n;h and E j i o f o r : Ni,yer i a n Worker.

Patchen, M. (1961). The cho ice of wage comparisons, New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - Hail .

P o r t e r , L. H. (1962), ItJob A t t i t u d e s i n Management: Perceived Def i c i enc i e s i n Need Fu l f i lmen t a s a Funct ion of Job Level fl, J o u r n a l o f Applied Psychology, vol . 46, NO. 6 ,

P o r t e r , L. W. and Lawler, E. F. (1968). Mana e r i a l A t t i t u d e s and Performance. I i n o i s : Irwin Uorsey.

+ Roxe, L. A . (1966). Personnel. Management f o r t h e Smal le r

Company: A Hands on Manual, Amacom, American Management Associa t ion.

Ycholl hammer, H. and K u r i l o f f , A. (1979). ~ n t e r p r e n e u r s h i p 'and Small Business Management, New York: John Wiley,

Skinner , B. F. (1953). Science and Human Rehaviour, New York: Macmillan.

Sk inner , R, F'. (1 969), Cont ingencies of He-inforcement : A T h e o r e t i c a l Analysis , New York: Appleton - century;

Uris, A. (1968), The Mastery of Management, I l l i n o i s : Jones - Irwin.

V i t e l e s s , M. S. (1953). Mot ivat ion and Morale i n Indus t ry N e w York: Norton

Vroom, V, H. (1964) . Work and M o t i v a t i o n New York: J o h n Wiley.

Werther, W. B. and Dav i s , K. (1985). P e r s o n n e l Msnsgement and H-urces mew York: Mc Graw - Hill,