This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
By Khadim Jan 1 Muhammad I. Ramay 2 & Tahir Masood Qureshi 3
1. Khadim Jan PhD Scholar Faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad 2. Muhammad I Ramay Associate Professor Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad 3. Tahir Masood Qureshi Faculty Member/ PhD Scholar Faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad
Motivation in Public Organisations
Abstract Motivation is known as important as other factors for achieving the organisation goals. The high motivation led the employees to the extreme commitment with the organisation goals. Similarly high employee motivation leads to greater employee creativity and productivity, in this research paper it has been found that the two independent variables, which are quality supervision and participation, are positively related to the dependent variable, motivation. The participation has a strong relationship level than the quality supervision with motivation. Results highlighted that all the tested variables are positively correlated but correlation of participation (0.52), quality of supervision (0.30) are respectively. Key Words: (Quality of supervision, Participation, Motivation, Public sector). Introduction Motivation is a force that drives people to do things. Employees are normally motivated to achieve their needs, whatever they may include. Motivation is inside another person's head and heart. It may be intrinsic or extrinsic. This is what we call motivation. Employees of a company will be motivated if they associate certain incentives with an activity of work. It has been seen in Pakistan that the employees in the public sector organisations are not motivated as much as in the private sector. There are so many factors responsible for this state of nature. In this research the focus is that what are the factors responsible for motivation and its impacts on the organisation goals. There are different types of public organisation but for this research study the insurance companies that are owned by the Government have been selected. The research here will be pertains to the insurance industry but it can also be extended to other public sector organisations. In this research the impact of the two independent variables will be seen on the motivation. Quality supervision is an aspect of immediate work environment, with significant implications for motivation (Parry & Porter, 1982). Similarly the National Center for Productivity (1978) reported employee perceptions of lower supervisory quality in the public than in the private sector. Parry and Porter (1982) also proved that in any event, quality of supervision is a critical element in motivational process. Participation involves some type of shared or joint decision making between supervisors and subordinates at the work group, program, or organisational level (Parry and Porter, 1982). They have further stated that one might expect that participation would contribute positively to motivational considerations like perception. Donald in his research paper, The Role of Organisations in Fostering Public Service Motivation, has stated that the empowering of the employees has a positive effect on PSM.
Literature review A challenging work environment and support of the top management is a very high motivator (Horwitz et al, 2003). Similarly having regular contacts with the senior executives is another factor for motivation (Horwitz et al, 2003). It was also proved by Horwitz et al (2003) that flexible work practices such as flexi-time does not guarantee the motivation. The ineffective practices may be potential dissatifiers and may not motivate intrinsically (Harzberg, 1966). A highly competitive pay package, with performance incentives, seemed to be more important for attracting the employees than motivation (Horwitz et al, 2003). Higher employee motivation leads to greater employee creativity, productivity and discretionary effort which inturn lead to improved company performance (Gevity Institute, motivating your employees). In the same small business guide it has been mentioned that businesses have the power to directly impact employee motivation through their employee management practices. Collective bargaining is one variant of participation (Porter and miles, 1974). It has been further stated by Porter and Miles, 1974 that participation would contribute positively to motivation. Frederick Herzberg’s motivation theory also states that satisfaction of the employees is associated with the non-monetary, or intrinsic factors like achievement, recognition, personal growth and the characteristics of the work. The intrinsic factors motivate the employee. Similarly the dissatisfying or the extrinsic factors like company policies, salary, co-worker relations, supervisor relationship and job security etc. feels the employee dissatisfied and less motivated. In the same management guide it has been clearly mentioned that the perceived inequality has been shown to lead to low motivation. It has also been pointed in the guide that by investing the time will provide opportunities to employee motivation. Porter and miles (1974) proved that the motivation energises, directs and sustains behaviour. They also identified four factor/variables namely individual characteristics, job characteristics, work environment and the external environment. If motivation is to be affected, one or more of these variables must be changed or affected. According to Guyot (1961), government middle managers had higher needs for achievement and lower needs for affiliation than did their business counter parts, but their needs for power may roughly the same. Rawls et al (1975) have found that standards about to enter government sector were significantly more dominated and flexible. They had higher capacity for status and economic wealth. (Paine, Carol & leete, 1966), (Rhinehart, Bamel, Dewalfe, Griffin & Spancer, 1969), (Rainey, 1979a, 1979b) indicate that public managers experience significantly lower levels of satisfaction and motivation than do their counterparts in the business. The quality supervision is an important factor for motivation. The national centre for productivity (1978) reported employees’ perception of lower supervisory quality in the public that in the private sector. The primary motivators for public sector employees are
the interests that attract them to public service (James L. Perry 1999). The organisational service learning has a significant positive effect on employee motivation (Hays and Hill 1999). According to Donald P. Moynihan in his research paper, The Role of Organisations in Fostering Public Service Motivation, that PSM is strongly and positively related to the level of education. Higher pay and package is less important for public service managers (Rainy 1982). Donald also proved that the hierarchical levels in an organisation would affect employee levels of PSM. Similarly the length of service with the organisation also affects the PSM. Donald also proved another thing that men have higher level of PSM than women. Employees can be committed to the organisation itself due to an emotional attachment or because of the benefits associated with the organisation (Wright and Pandey 2005). Public Service Motivation (PSM) may represent a value based commitment to work, (Wright and Pandey, 2005). A relationship exists between employee motives and sector employment (Bradley E. Wright 2001). Work motivation is just one factor that influences performance (Bradley E. Wright 2001). Sector differences in performance rewards, procedural constraints, and goal content may influence work motivation directly (Bradley E. Wright 2001). The observed behaviour in the public organisations can be understood only if citizens and policy makers are motivated by altruistic considerations (John King et al, 1992). Most of the managers in the public sector are motivated by productivity and service enhancement (John King et al, 1992). It has been further proved by John King et al, 1992, that lack of significance of variables such as organisational role and context suggests that motivations are not determine purely or even primarily by environmental factors. They are instead the result of more complex interactions among the environment, experience and personality. Rationale James r. Perry and Lyman W. Porter have researched on the factors affecting the context for the motivation in the public organisation. In this research, the employees of the insurance company that was a public sector company were surveyed. The impact of the two independent variables on the dependent variable that is motivation was seen. Research question What is the impact of Quality Supervision and Participation on Motivation? Hypotheses Hypotheses 1: Quality supervision is positively related to the Public Service Motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982). Participation is also significantly related to the public Service motivation (PSM).
Theoretical frame work
Independent Variables H1 Quality Supervision Motivation H2 Participation Dependent Variable
Research Methodology Sample: About one hundred and fifty (150) questionnaires were sent to the employees of the insurance company that is owned by the government. These employees were included the officers from Assistant General Managers to Executive Officers (the starting grade). Only one hundred and twenty six (126) questionnaires were received back duly filled and completed. Questionnaire: For this purpose a questionnaire was designed I which all the items were scored on a five point Likert Scale with end points of “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”. Before this the James L. Perry and Lyman W. Porter has conducted the research. They have considered more independent variables and its impact on the motivation. But in this research only two of the independent variables were considered in the Pakistani environment in a public sector insurance company. Subject: The employees of the govt. insurance company based in Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Abbottabad and Peshawar were surveyed. Procedure The two independent variables have been measured after collection of data. The impact of each independent variable has been seen separately on the dependent veriable, which is motivation. It has been proved that each independent variable has positive impact on the dependent variable. The positive relation was also found between the independent variable. As we have to establish the relationship between independent variables and dependant variable so we used the Pearson correlation to find the relation of the independent variables with the dependent variable.
Results Characteristics of Target Population Although State Life has employed thousands of employees but the survey has been restricted to the officers of the five centers only. A total of 150 officers were asked to complete the survey questionnaires in these centers. Out of these 124 officers responded making the response rate 83%. Keeping in view the limited number of officers in these centers the sample is sufficient for analysis of various results. Conclusion On the basis of the data collected it has been proved that participation is positively related to the motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982). Similarly quality supervision is also positively related to motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982). Donald in his research paper has also concluded the same results that the empowering of the employees has a positive effect on public service motivation. Horwitz et al, 2003 has also proved the same results the support of the top management is very high motivator. Porter and Miles, 1974 has also proved that participation would contribute positively to motivation. The next variable participation and the data collected and analysed proved that it has also positively related to the motivation. The quality supervision is an important factor for motivation (National Centre for Productivity, 1978). Similarly Parry and Porter, 1982 has concluded that quality supervision has a significant implication for motivation. Hays and Hill, 1999 has also proved that organizational learning has a significant positive effect on employee motivation. Findings In the above correlation table it has been established that participation has a relation level of .52 and the quality supervision has .30 with the motivation. It means that participation is more strongly related to motivation in the public service motivation than quality supervision. My findings are consistent with the above stated researchers in spite of the fact that we have conducted our research in the Pakistani environment. Because we have found on the basis of our data a positive relationship of independent variables (Quality Supervision and Participation) with the dependent variable (Motivation). Parry and Porter and other researchers have found the same results in their research. It has also been proved that hypotheses one is true because quality supervision is positively related to motivation. In contrast to the hypotheses one, hypotheses two has also been proved to be corrected in the sense that participation is more positively related to motivation than quality supervision. The two independent variables are also positively related with each other. So in the light of the data it has been proved and we can say with confidence that participation and quality supervision are both positively related to the motivation and it was the findings of most of the previous researchers. Direction for Future Research Future research can be conducted in the areas like extending this one research to achieving organizational goals. Motivation levels of both male and females can be seen
separately. Motivation level of the employees with regard to their qualification can also be seen.
References: Hyde, S.J; & Kling, C.K. (2001). Women, Motivation, And Achievement.: University of Wisconsin. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25 (2001). Perry, L.J. (1999). Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation: Indiana University. 471/ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Motivating Your Employees (A Small Business Guide) Gevity Institute. 2005. GNGIN 151 9-05 Gevity HR, Inc. Perry, L. J; & Porter, W. L. (1982). Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations.: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. No. 1 (Jan;1982), 89-98 Horwitz, M. F. & Heng, T.C. & Quazi, A.H. (2003). Finders, Keepers? Attracting, motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 13 No 4, 2003, Pages 23-44 Hays, M. J. & Hill, V.A. (1999). Gaining Competitive Service Value through Performance Motivation. Curtis L. Carlson School of Management University of Minnesota. Moynihan, P. D. & Pandey, K. S. The Role Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation. Forthcoming in Public Administration Review. Bush School Working Paper-505 Perry, L. J. & Kraemer, L. K. & Dunkle, D. & King, J. (1992). University of California. Motivation To Innovate In Public Organizations. Working paper-URB-026 Wright, E. B. & Pandey, K. S. (2005). University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Department of Political Science. Exploring the Nomological Map of Public Service Motivation Concept. Wright, E. B. (2001). University at Albany-Sunny. Public-Sector Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature and a Revised Conceptual Model. 559/Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. J-PART 11(2001):4:559Kim, J. (2006). University of Michigan School of Information. Motivating and Impeding Factors Affecting Faculty Contribution to Institutional Responsibilities. Houston, J. D. (2005). University of Tennessee. “Walking the Walk” of Public Service Motivation: Public Employees and Charitable Gifts of Time, Blood, and Money.
The Effects of Motivation on Performance. Copy right. (2004), essays.cc
A SURVEY ON MOTIVATION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS
I am a student of Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad. I am conducting a research on Motivation in public organizations , under the supervision of Prof. M. I. Ramay. Your responses are strictly confidential. In no way will your name or your answers be revealed out. This questionnaire, which I am completing for my Motivation at Work, is designed to ascertain how you are motivated and whether you motivate the people around you. I apologize for using your valuable time and hope that you will enjoy the questionnaire. (Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible) There are no right or wrong answers. Your response will reflect your own perception of how you motivate or can motivate others at work. Do not spend too much time on a statement; generally your first reaction is the most accurate. Please answer all the questions as best as you can. Thank you for your kind cooperation, support and contribution towards this research. If you need findings of this research please send a request to email@example.com
Age 0 20-30 0 41-50 0 31-40 0 51+
Gender 0 Male
Highest Level of Education
0 Masters 0 Ph.D
Ad min / Tec
Income Level 0 20,000-30,000 0 41,000-50,000 0 31,000-40,000 0 51,000+
Years with this Organization
0 Less than year 0 6-10 yrs. 0 1-5 yrs. 0 10 or above
Years in this sector/Industry
0 Less than year
0 6-10 yrs. 0 1-5 yrs. 0 10 or above
1 = Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
My immediate supervisor is reasonable. Provides regular feedback about my performance. Acknowledge when I have performed well. Allows me freedom to use my initiative in performing my job. Encourages my input in to decisions. Encourages and supports my career development. My supervisor takes a flexible approach to issues arising between work and family. My supervisor communicates effectively. My supervisor encourages suggestions for improvements.
1 = Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
I enjoy working on moderately difficult (challenging) tasks and goals. I relate very well to people. I am afraid of making mistakes. I involve my people in defining their roles and procedure of working. I develop teamwork among the people who work for me. I am uneasy and less productive when work alone. I like to solicit ideas from others. I like to accept responsibility in the group’s work.
1 = Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
I have high goals and expectations for myself. I am confident in my ability. I am eager to learn new things. I put forth the necessary effort to reach a goal. I believe I can always improve. I seek solutions to complex problems. I take action on causes I believe in. I make sacrifices today to benefit my future. I accept responsibility for my actions. I am optimistic about the future.
(Thank you very much for filling out this questionnaire, your help is appreciated. This questionnaire will help me to analyze how motivated the office is and how each person feels about the business.)
Different characteristics of target population are as under: Table: 1 Frequency: Gender
Gender Male Female Total Frequency 109 15 124 Percentage 88% 12% 100%
Table: 2 Frequency: Age
Age 20-30 31-40 41-50 51 & Over Total Frequency 11 61 27 25 124 Percentage 9% 49% 22% 20% 100%
Table: 3 Frequency: Qualification
Qualification Bachelors Masters MS/M.Phil Ph.D Total Frequency 73 45 4 2 124 Percentage 59% 36% 3% 2% 100%
Table: 4 Frequency: Job
Job Title Admin. Tech. Total Frequency 69 55 124 Percentage 56% 44% 100%
Table: 5 Frequency: Income
Income (In 000) Frequency 20-30 79 31-40 32 41-50 8 51 & Over 5 Total 124 Percentage 64% 36% 6% 4% 100%
Table: 6 Frequency: Experience
Years Less Then 1 Year 1-5 6-10 More Then 10 Years Total Frequency 0 13 24 7 124 Percentage 0% 10.48% 19.35% 70.16% 100%
ANNEXURE: 2 Table 7Correlations
QS QS Part. Mot. 1 0.32 0.31 Part. 1 0.52 1 Mot.
Table99- Descriptive Statistics
QS Mean Standard Error Median Standard Deviation Range Minimum Maximum Sum Count Confidence Level (95.0%) Part 3.8136 0.0655 4.0000 0.7294 3.1111 1.8889 5.0000 472.8889 124.0000 0.1297 3.7893 0.0447 3.7500 0.4973 2.1250 2.7500 4.8750 469.8750 124.0000 0.0884 Mot 4.1782 0.0537 4.2000 0.5975 3.2000 1.8000 5.0000 518.1000 124.0000 0.1062
Correlations QS QS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Part. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mot. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 124 .037 .687 124 .136 .133 124 Part. .037 .687 124 1 . 124 .126 .163 124 Mot. .136 .133 124 .126 .163 124 1 . 124
Descriptive Statistics Mean 3.90 3.85 4.19 Std. Deviation 1.139 1.057 .703 N 124 124 124
Mot. QS Part.
Correlations Mot. 1.000 .136 .126 . .066 .082 124 124 124 QS .136 1.000 .037 .066 . .343 124 124 124 Part. .126 .037 1.000 .082 .343 . 124 124 124
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed)
Mot. QS Part. Mot. QS Part. Mot. QS Part.
Variables Entered/Removed (b) Variables Variables Entered Removed Part., QS(a) . a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: Mot. Model 1
Model Summary (b) Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate R Square Change 1 .182 .033 (a) a Predictors: (Constant), Part., QS b Dependent Variable: Mot. .017 1.129 .033 F Change 2.073 df 1 2
Change Statistics df2 121 Sig. F Change
ANNEXURE: 4 ANOVA (b) Sum of Squares Regressio n Residual Total 5.288 154.349
df 2 121 123
Mean Square 2.644 1.276
159.637 a Predictors: (Constant), Part., QS b Dependent Variable: Mot.
Coefficients (a) Mod el Unstandardized Coefficients Std. B Error (Consta nt) QS 2.527 .142 .707 .096 .131 Standardized Coefficients Beta 3.57 2 1.46 9 .001 .144
95% Confidence Interval for B Upper Lower Bound Bound 1.126 -.049 3.927 .333
a Dependent Variable: Mot. Coefficient Correlations (a) Model 1 Part. 1.000 -.037 .021 -.001 QS -.037 1.000 -.001 .009
Correlati ons Covarian ces
Part. QS Part. QS
a Dependent Variable: Mot. Residuals Statistics (a) Minimum 3.20 -3.076 -3.339 -2.723 Maximum 4.22 1.797 1.554 1.591 Mean 3.90 .000 .000 .000 Std. Deviation .207 1.120 1.000 .992 N 124 124 124 124
Predicted Value Residual Std. Predicted Value Std. Residual
a Dependent Variable: Mot.
Dependent Variable: Mot.
5 Mean = 2.91E-17 Std. Dev. = 0.992 N = 124 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Regression Standardized Residual
Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
Dependent Variable: Mot.
Expected Cum Prob
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.