Chapter II

Review of Literature

The earlier chapter presented the introduction to the study. This chapter is devoted to
present the review of literature on motivation and job satisfaction.

2.1 MOTIVATION

Meaning of Motivation

The globalization of businesses and the advancement of information technologies have

brought changes that are reshaping the world of work. They alter the way business is
done, the way employees behave and the way managers manage their employees.
Motivating and retaining employees has become an important and complex task for the
managers. The key to performing this task well is to find out more about the factors that
motivate employees.

It has become important to establish the correlation between management and motivation
of employees. To have a sound human resource management strategy that attracts retains
and motivates the valuable employees, it is important that the organizations find out what
the employees are looking for from their jobs. The organization should constantly assess
the employees’ motivation levels and also what they need, want or expect from their
work.

In the age of Scientific Management, forwarded by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the

1890’s, only monetary rewards were considered to be important to employees. This rather
limited view of employees’ needs and rewards gave way in the 1920’s when a series of
experiments at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant led to a new paradigm
of worker motivation. The Hawthorne experiments, as they came to be known, led to a
view that saw employees motivated more by social needs rather than by purely economic
ones. This viewpoint, known as the Human Relations Movement, attempted to identify
and satisfy the social needs of the worker in the belief that a satisfied worker worked

37
harder than an unsatisfied worker. Rewards under the Human Relations viewpoint,
therefore, also included the relationships employees form with their fellow workers. It
was thus seen to be in the organization’s interest to provide an environment that allows
and encourages social relationships to develop. Finally, the Human Resources Movement
began to concentrate more on the needs of the individual rather than the interactions
within working groups.

The Human Resources Movement views the worker as being largely ‘pre-motivated’ to
perform to the best of their abilities and it becomes the task of management to provide
conditions whereby workers can meet their own individual goals at the same time as
meeting those of the organization. Rewards under the Human Resources Movement
therefore include a wide range of factors, such as money, affiliation, achievement and
performing a meaningful job.

At one time, employees were considered just another input into the production of goods
and services. What perhaps changed this way of thinking about employees was research,
referred to as the Hawthorne Studies, conducted by Elton Mayo from 1924 to 1932 found
that employees are not motivated solely by money and employee behavior is linked to
their attitudes.

The amount of research on motivation has varied through time. During the 1930s and
1940s, work motivation became prevalent through drive theories i.e. reinforcement or
need theories. While the 1950s and 1960s showed a decrease in the amount of attention
on work motivation, however further theories were developed based on the cognitive
perspective which provided the basis for future theories in the 1960s such as Vroom
(1964) and Locke (1968).

Motivation by definition refers to what activates, directs human behavior and how this
behavior is sustained to achieve a particular goal. Also it can be defined as the set of
processes that arouse, direct and maintain human behavior towards attaining some goals.
Motivating the workforce of an organization to work more effectively towards the
organization’s goals is perhaps the most fundamental task of management. Organizations

38
motivate their workforce to perform effectively by offering those rewards for satisfactory
performance and perhaps punishing them for unsatisfactory performance. Over the past
hundred years or so there has been an evolution in the view of what the term ‘rewards’
actually means in an organizational context. According to psychologists, people can also
be motivated to do things even though there is no external reward but the behaviour itself.
In this case people are said to be intrinsically motivated Deci (1975).

According to McCormick and Tifflin (1979), motivation can be either intrinsic or

extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation stems from motivations that are inherent in the job itself
and which the individual enjoys as a result of successfully completing the task or
attaining his goals. While extrinsic motivations are those that are external to the task of
the job, such as pay, work condition, fringe benefits, security, promotion, contract of
service, the work environment and conditions of work. Such tangible motivations are
often determined at the organizational level, and may be largely outside the control of
individual managers. Intrinsic motivation on the other hand are those rewards that can be
termed “psychological motivations” and examples are opportunity to use one’s ability, a
sense of challenge and achievement, receiving appreciation, positive recognition, and
being treated in a caring and considerate manner.

According to Dessler (1980) motivation is both one of the simplest and most
complex of management jobs. It is simple because people are basically motivated or
driven to behave in a way which will lead to rewards. Daschler and Ninemeier (1984)
said “Motivation is a state or force within an individual that makes the employee act in a
way designed to achieve some goal. Taking this broad definition and putting it into the
context of supervision, motivation is what the supervisor does to encourage and influence
other people to take necessary action”.

Kovach (1987) stated that motivation is the force within a person that makes him/her act
in a certain way to achieve some goal. Motivation is, in fact, an internally generated
forces or drive within the individual which provides an incentive for the employee to act.

39
Research suggests that as employees' income increases, money becomes less of a
motivator and as employees get older, interesting work becomes more of a motivator.

The changing view of organisational rewards and employee motivation has led to a
multitude of theories of exactly how the job rewards influence the motivation and
performance of employees. Steers (1987) stated that “a comprehensive theory of
motivation at work must address itself to at least three important sets of variables which
constitute the work situation” i.e. the characteristics of the individual, the characteristics
of the job and the characteristics of the work environment. Steers points out that, at
present, no model exists that accounts for variables from each of the three major areas.

According to Drummond (1990) motivation is in the individual and helps to explain

behavior. Motivation is an intricate inside process with three components: what drives the
individual to behave in certain ways, what steers the behavior, and what maintains the
behavior. To satisfy the employees’ need is very difficult because each employee has
different characteristics that affect behavior. The factors that organizations have to be
concerned with are self-concept, attitudes, values, interests, feelings, personality, and life
experiences. They have to encourage employees through a positive organizational climate
that is motivating. This is due, in part, to the fact that what motivates employee changes
constantly Bowen & Radhakrishna (1991). It is not possible to understand, explain or
predict human behavior without some knowledge of motivation” Cai (1993). The
Hawthorne Studies began the human relations approach to management, whereby the
needs and motivation of employees become the primary focus of managers Bedeian
(1994).

Bong (1996) generally, motivation models may be classed as belonging to one of two
theoretical orientation groups – cognitive models and social-cognitive models. Cognitive
models of motivation “place greater weight on understanding learners’ covert thought
processes, often overlooking the impact of social and contextual variables” i.e. they focus
on the individual characteristics at the expense of the job and work environment
characteristics. A social-cognitive approach focuses on formulating and testing specific

40
hypotheses regarding the nature and direction of influence from social and contextual
variables. These different theoretical orientations often lead academic motivation
researchers to different conclusions as to which potentially relevant variables to include
in or exclude from their conceptualizations.

Bong, in a paper highlighting the problems in academic motivation research, stated that
the fact that no single model has been able to capture the full dynamics of motivated
behaviours was due to “different theoretical orientations of investigators working in the
field, who tend to emphasize a particular dimension of motivational phenomena over the
others”. He suggests that there are two solutions to the formulation of a broader model of
motivation. One possible solution for integrating numerous motivational constructs and
findings is to create a general model.

An intrinsically motivated individual, according to Ajila (1997) will be committed to his

work to the extent to which the job inherently contains tasks that are rewarding to him or
her. An extrinsically motivated person will be committed to the extent that he can gain or
receive external rewards for his or her job. He further suggested that for an individual to
be motivated in a work situation there must be a need, which the individual would have
to perceive a possibility of satisfying through some reward. If the reward is intrinsic to
the job, such desire or motivation is intrinsic. But, if the reward is described as external to
the job, the motivation is described as extrinsic.

The social-psychological model of the interaction between extrinsic and intrinsic

motivation is introduced in economics as the crowding theory by Frey (1997). Frey
assumes, in line with Deci that intrinsic motivation increases when individuals perceive
an external intervention as supportive. In this case, a crowding-in effect is said to occur.
An attempt has been made for a better understanding of what the theoretical construct of
intrinsic motivation in the context of paid work comes down to. Even though the
theoretical importance of intrinsic motivation is widely accepted currently, in practice
organizations don’t seem to pay much attention to intrinsic motivation but focus mainly
on extrinsic stimuli in their attempt to motivate their employees. Motivation is
operationally defined as the inner force that drives individuals to accomplish personal and

41
organizational goals. Frey’s definition of intrinsic motivation, therefore, also includes
feelings of obligation, such as work morale. However, if individuals perceive an external
intervention as controlling, intrinsic motivation decreases and a crowding-out effect is
said to occur. Why do we need motivated employees? The answer is survival Smith
(1998). Motivated employees are needed in our rapidly changing workplaces. Motivated
employees help organizations survive. Motivated employees are more productive.
Kreitner (1995), Bedeian &Linder (1995), Higgins (1994) all cited in Linder (1998)
defined motivation as “the psychological process that gives behavior purpose and
direction, a predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific unmet
needs, an unsatisfied need that will to achieve respectively.

The assumption that certain activities provide their own inherent reward raises the
question of how external rewards will affect people’s intrinsic motivation for these
activities Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999). To be effective, managers need to understand
what motivates employees within the context of the roles they perform. Of all the
functions a manager performs, motivating employees is arguably the most complex.
Motivation is probably one of the most important human resource management
responsibilities Jerris (1999). Considerable research has been conducted regarding the
definition of motivation. The amount of effort people are willing to put in their work
depends on the degree to which they feel their motivational needs will be satisfied. On
the other hand, individuals become de-motivated if they feel something in the
organization prevents them from attaining good outcomes. It can be observed from the
above definitions that, motivation in general, is more or less basically concern with
factors or events that moves, leads, and drives certain human action or Inaction over a
given period of time given the prevailing conditions.

Young (2001) suggests that motivation can be defined in a variety of ways, depending on
who you ask. Ask someone on the street, you may get a response like “it’s what drives
us” or “it’s what makes us do the things we do.” Therefore motivation is the force within
an individual that account for the level, direction, and persistence of effort expended at
work.” It is important to note, however, that Frey uses the term external intervention.

42
According to Frey, intrinsic motivation is not only influenced by external rewards but
also by regulations and commands. In Frey’s definition, intrinsic motivation has
‘acquired the meaning of being motivated to do something without being forced by
commands and without being paid to do it’. In order to be able to understand how
changes in organizations may affect employee performance it is of great importance to
understand the effects that changes in the organization may have on employee
motivation. While employees might be able to perform a certain job, if they aren’t willing
to give their utmost while doing this, employee performance will be low. Employee
motivation, therefore, is an important determinant of performance at the workplace
Houkes (2001).

The concept of employee motivation has been the subject of study in many different
disciplines. However, within each discipline different theories prevail about what
motivates people to go to work each day and how these motivations can be affected by
changing the rewards of working. While economic theory attributes changes in behaviour
to changes in relative prices, psychology generally focuses on people’s preferences Frey
et al (2001). The term motivation is derived from the Latin term ‘movere’, which means
‘to move’ Baron, Henley, McGibbon & McCarthy (2002). Moreover, the research
performed so far is primarily based on activities for which people typically don’t expect
to be paid, such as puzzle solving or volunteer work. In situations in which people do
expect to receive a financial reward, external interventions may have a different or no
impact on intrinsic motivation. Because financial rewards are typically expected in
economic contexts, additional research is needed to make the point that in the context of
paid work external interventions may affect the intrinsic motivation of employees also.

The extrinsic and intrinsic rewards employees derive from their job as well as the
productivity of these rewards therefore influence the level of well-being and thus the
level of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation employee’s display within their job. Therefore,
changes in the possibilities of producing well-being affect the level of employee
motivation. External interventions are assumed to affect extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
by influencing the extrinsic and intrinsic rewards employees derive from their job. In

43
addition, the intrinsic motivation of the employees is assumed to be influenced by the
way in which an external intervention is perceived. If, on one hand, an external
intervention is perceived as controlling, the productivity of the intrinsic rewards that are
derived from performing the activity decrease and intrinsic motivation will be crowded-
out. On the other hand, if an external intervention is perceived as supportive, the
productivity of the intrinsic rewards that are derived from performing the activity
increase and intrinsic motivation will be crowded-in. In social psychology, the
phenomenon of crowding out is known as ‘the hidden cost of reward’ or ‘the over
justification effect’ Frey and Osterloh (2002).

A great many definitions of the motivation construct have been postulated over the
several decades during which this multi-faceted concept has been researched. Greenberg
et al (2003) defines motivation as ‘the set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain
human behavior towards attaining some goal”. Bassett-Jones &Lloyd (2005) presents
those two views of human nature underlay early research into employee motivation. The
first view focuses on Taylors, which viewed people as basically “lazy and work –shy”
and thus held that these set of employees can only be motivated by external stimulation.
The second view was based on Hawthorn findings, which held the view that employees
are motivated to work well for “its own sake” as well as for the social and monetary
benefits this type of motivation according to this school was internally motivated.

2.2. Historical development of the employee motivation concept

The traditional model of thought on motivation dominated during the period 1900 to
1930. This manner of conceptualizing motivation is connected mostly to the thinking of
Frederick Winslow Taylor and the scientific school of management. Their rather
mechanistic point of departure was that workers generally do not want to work, and need
to be motivated by financial reward. In other words, people are willing to work, but only
if they get paid for it.

The traditional model made way for the human relations model that dominated between
1930 and 1960. Over time it became evident that the traditional model of motivation was

44
not applicable to all circumstances or people, as workers appeared to be able to motivate
themselves in many cases, and to not require constant supervision and control. At the
same time, workers became increasingly suspicious of management, as their
remuneration started losing equitability with their productivity. Worker dissatisfaction led
to the establishment of the first trade and labour unions. Gradually, the mechanistic ‘man-
machine’ idea of the previous movement made way for a better understanding of the
nature of people, and especially of the importance of social relationships in the workplace
on people’s motivation to work, and the human relations model of motivation was
established.

Around the 1960s it became popular to look upon motivation in terms of human
potential. Although the human relations school represented a considerable advancement
on traditional thinking, it could also not provide a complete explanation for of behaviour
in the workplace. It gradually made way for the human potential model. According to
theorists like McGregor, Maslow, Argyris and Likert, the human relations view simply
allowed for a more sophisticated way than financial reward to manipulate the worker.
They maintained that a worker is motivated by much more than just money or satisfying
social relationships, and that especially a sense of achievement resulting from performing
meaningful and challenging work is a potent employee need. They also argued that
people are already motivated to perform their tasks effectively, and do not necessarily
regard work as unwanted or unpleasant. This school of thought remains dominant in
motivation theorising and application today.

Cofer and Appley (1968) provided an interesting account of the early historical
development of the employee motivation concept. They dated interest in motivational
phenomena back to Darwin and Freud, and held that it is probably true that the form of
the early dominant motivation questions stemmed largely from concepts relating to
Darwinian evolution. Freud, and various others, was influenced by these concepts.

However, most of the concepts in vogue have pre-Darwinian origins, such as the notion
of evolution, instinct, hedonism, rationality and irrationality, unconscious processes,

45
active mental forces, and mechanism and determinism. Primitive man, in his comparison
of himself to animals, must have discovered that a spiritual difference existed. This
represented the earliest thoughts on dualism in humans, i.e. the belief in the co-existence
of body and spirit or soul, which remained an important field of study and debate in
Western philosophy, from Aristotle through the Church philosophers, such as Augustine
and Aquinas, to Descartes and beyond. The manner in which the antecedents of
behaviour were conceptualised at any particular time in history has given rise to the
establishment of many theories on the motivation behind behaviour. Van Niekerk (1987)
and Du Toit (1990) provide a brief account of how the thinking of the various schools of
thought, from the religious theorists to the philosophers and social scientists, has evolved
over time.

2.3. Definitions of employee motivation

Campbell and Pritchard (1976) defined as “a label for the determinants of the choice to
initiate effort on a certain task, the choice to expend a certain amount of effort, and the
choice to persist in expending effort over a period of time”. Motivation, therefore, closes
the satisfaction-performance loop, and has to do with a set of interrelated factors that
explain an individual’s behaviour, holding constant the variables controlled or influenced
by management, as well as by individual skills, abilities and knowledge.

Beach (1980) saw motivation as a willingness to expend energy to achieve a goal or

reward. This author took somewhat of a behaviourist approach in stating that behaviour
that is perceived to be rewarding will be repeated, whereas behaviour that goes
unrewarded or is punished, tends to be extinguished. He recognizes intrinsic motivation
related to the job content, and that which occurs when people perform an activity from
which they derive satisfaction from simply engaging in the activity itself. Further he
regarded extrinsic motivation as related to the job environment, which provides a person
with the incentives and rewards he or she receives after having performed the work.
Churchill (1985) stated that studies over the years have shown little relationship between
measures of job satisfaction and performance outputs. Highly satisfied workers may be
poor performers, whereas highly dissatisfied workers may be good performers. Several

46
variables influence the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance;
although no direct causal relationships between these have been identified as yet.
However, it appears that motivation might account for much of the link between an
employee’s job satisfaction and job performance. In practice, proponents of this view
would focus on establishing an environment conducive to satisfying and maintaining
social interrelationships at work. From the perspective of self-actualizing man, people are
intrinsically motivated, and take pride in their work, and derive satisfaction from their
accomplishments. Within this approach, workplace reward systems are highly
performance-oriented. Lastly, the complex man view recognizes that people are
motivated by a great variation of motives, emotions, experiences and abilities, and that
these change over time as new motives are learnt, and new skills change their attitudes
towards their jobs. Organizations supporting this perspective offer highly individualized
reward structures, and environments and ways in which employees are allowed to
perform their duties.

The fundamental point of departure should be a thorough understanding of the nature of

the individual, e.g. his or her needs, values, beliefs, expectancies, drive levels and habits.
It is interesting to note that the concept of organizational commitment has come to partly
replace that of motivation within the field of organizational behaviour Lewicki (1981).
While the concept of motivation is linked to individualistic and task-centered reward
systems, commitment seems to be linked to the identification of employees with a
collective, that is, in terms of corporate values and norms. As such, management is
concerned with cultivating motivation towards realizing the mission and goals of the
organization, which are far above the ambitions and goals of any individual in it.

Employee motivation was viewed as an innate force, shaped and maintained by a set of
highly individualized factors that may change from time to time, depending on the
particular needs and motives of the employee. Environmental forces, such as those
related to the job itself and to the organization, do not have a causal link with motivation,
but impact on the level of motivation experienced by the employee. Together, the innate
and environmental forces determine an employee’s behaviour at work. Motivation was

47
also regarded as a multi-dimensional concept that manifests in behaviours that may be
observed, measured and, to some extent at least, predicted. As mentioned earlier the
concept of motivation is very important in terms of organizational effectiveness, as it
constitutes the crucial link between employee job satisfaction and employee performance,
which in turn determines organizational profitability and success. In their quest to
maintain an optimally motivated workforce, management’s focus should therefore be on
attending to the myriad of job-specific, as well as organizational factors which have been
shown to contribute towards employee job satisfaction and motivation.

Beck (1983) expressed a similar view, and stated that motivation is concerned with
explaining the variation in behaviour, such as why some people work harder than others.
Work characteristics in this regard refer to specific characteristics of a person’s job, for
example its task variety, whereas personal characteristics include those determined by a
person’s personality, for example an intrinsic need for achievement.

Van Niekerk (1987) saw work motivation as the creation of work circumstances that
influence workers to perform a certain activity or task of their own free will, in order to
reach the goals of the organization, and simultaneously satisfy their own needs. In the
field of organization psychology, work motivation is clearly approached from several
angles. As a result, a single comprehensive definition of motivation, which covers all
purposes in the field, is not possible.

Du Toit (1990) added that three groups of variables influence work motivation, namely
individual characteristics, such as people’s own interests, values and needs, work
characteristics, such as task variety and responsibility, and organizational characteristics,
such as its policies, procedures and customs. The concept of motivation is therefore
particularly useful in its ability to increase general understanding and prediction of
behaviour. Gouws (1995) defined motivation as an inner wish or urge that originates with
an individual, either consciously or unconsciously, to complete a task successfully
because it is enjoyable, and not necessarily for what will be received in return.

48
Petri (1996) also regarded motivation as the forces acting on or within a person to initiate
and direct behaviour. It explains differences in intensity of behaviour, and why behaviour
occurs in one situation, but not in another. Pinder (1998) contended that an essential
feature of this definition is that work motivation is an invisible, internal and hypothetical
construct, and that researchers therefore have to rely on established theories to guide
them in the measurement of observable manifestations of work motivation. In terms of
equity theory for example, work motivation is expected to manifest in both attitudinal
(e.g. job satisfaction) and behavioural (e.g. performance) measures, whereas in terms of
goal-setting theory the primary manifestation of motivation is behavioural (e.g. enhanced
performance when ability remains unchanged).

Pinder (1998) described work motivation as the set of internal and external forces that
initiate work-related behaviour, and determine its form, direction, intensity and duration.
The concept focuses on events and phenomena of the work context only, and includes the
influence on work behaviour of both environmental forces and those inherent in the
person. Schultz and Schultz (1998), regarded motivation as simply the personal and
workplace characteristics that explain why people behave the way they do on the job.

In an age where retaining talent is crucial to their prosperity, organisations realize that
they need to do a better job at letting employees know that their work matters, by
stepping up employee recognition Clarke (2001). Fortunately there also appears to be
acknowledgement of the fact that people are inspired in dramatically different ways, and
that employee motivation should never take a one-size-fits-all approach Terez (2001).
Baron et al. (2002) concurred, and added that motivation is a complex phenomenon best
understood within a multivariate systems framework. Such a comprehensive view should,
at the very least, include the following aspects. A considerable field of interest covers the
relationship of extrinsic reward and work motivation, and many organisations have
responded strongly to its findings. Successful organizations often attribute much of their
success to a corporate culture that focuses on employee recognition Wiscombe (2002).

49
Spector (2003) described motivation as an internal state that induces a person to engage
in particular behaviours, and held that motivation may be viewed from two angles. On the
one hand, motivation encompasses direction, where a particular behaviour is selected
from a choice of behaviours. It refers to the amount of effort put into a task, and
persistence, which denotes the person’s continuing engagement in the selected behaviour.
On the other hand, motivation is also concerned with a desire to achieve a certain goal,
which derives from the particular individual’s own needs and desires.

2.4. Theories of Motivation

Even though much research has been conducted on the field of financial motivation and
many researchers and writers have proposed theories on the concept of financial
motivation, and its role in enhancing employee’s performance in every organization some
of these models have been widely used and accepted by today’s organizations leaders.
According to Petri (1996) the vast array of motivation theories are based on differing
approaches to the origins or sources of motivation. These can be energy, heredity,
learning, social interaction, cognitive processes, activation of motivation, hedonism or
growth motivation.

Motivation research draws on a large number of theoretical perspectives. Although some

of these appear to be less influential than when they were originally postulated, such as
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory Wicker & Wiehe (1999). Their contributions as
foundation layers and inspirations for subsequent theories are still evident and
acknowledged. Cognitive theories do not focus directly on work as a potential source of
motivation. They rather focus on the cognitive processes, such as thoughts, beliefs and
values, which people use to make choices regarding their behaviour at work Schultz &
Schultz (1998). For this reason these theories are also referred to as process theories.
Examples include equity, expectancy and goal-setting theories.

Needs-based theories, also referred to as content theories due to their explanation of the
content of motivation Hadebe (2001). He proposes that internal states within individuals
energise and direct their behaviour. These internal states are typically referred to as

50
drives, needs or motives in these theories, of which those of Maslow, McGregor and
Herzberg are well-known examples. Drive and reinforcement theories are based on
behaviouristic approaches, which argue that reinforcement conditions behavior. A
behaviour that has been rewarded in the past will tend to be repeated, and behaviour that
has been punished previously, will tend to be extinguished. Depending on the particular
approach adopted, motivation theories are generally classified into three categories,
namely needs-based, cognitive, and drive and reinforcement theories Baron et al. (2002).

2.4.1 Needs-based theories

2.4.1. a. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory

One of the most often-quoted motivation theories is that of Abraham Maslow, which he
introduced in 1943 Van Niekerk (1987). The basic tenet of the theory is that people are
motivated by their quest to satisfy their needs, or deficiencies, which may be grouped in
five categories, and that these needs occur in a specific hierarchy, where lower order
needs have to be satisfied before those of a higher order Gouws (1995). Maslow (1968)
asserted that “gratification of one basic need opens consciousness to domination by
another”. Physiological needs are related to basic survival, e.g. hunger or thirst. Safety
needs do not only apply to physical safety and security, but also to a person’s striving for
personal security, such as a steady job. Social needs refer to friendship, love and social
acceptance and support, whereas egotistical needs refer to recognition, respect and
achievement. Self-actualisation, Egotistical needs or Esteem needs, Social needs, Safety
needs and Physiological needs involve a person’s desire to be respected by others and by
him- or herself. Self-actualisation occurs at the pinnacle of the needs hierarchy, as it
represents a person’s striving towards the full development of his potential, which is
essentially never completely attained Gouws (1995). In addition, one of its main
constructs, the self-actualisation concept, has become very popular with especially
managers and executives who have accepted this high-level need as a potent motivator
Schultz & Schultz (1998).

51
Over time, little empirical evidence has been produced to support the idea of a needs
hierarchy. It developed an idea that as needs are satisfied, their importance diminishes
Baron et al. (2002). These shortcomings have been addressed in Alderfer’s Existence-
Relatedness-Growth (ERG) theory, which is an expansion of Maslow’s theory. Alderfer
condensed Maslow’s five needs into three, which were termed ‘Existence’ (physical
survival needs), ‘Relatedness’ (social needs) and ‘Growth’ (need for personal growth and
development). Alderfer emphasised that these needs do not occur in a hierarchy, but
rather on a continuum Spector (2003). They may in fact be experienced simultaneously
Alderfer (1969). His theory has intuitive appeal, and is more directly applicable to
employee motivation than Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory. Despite the limited
empirical support, needs hierarchy theory has had a positive impact on organizations, as
it has focused attention on the importance of addressing employees’ needs at work.

2.4.1. b. Herzberg’s two-factor theory

Frederick Herzberg’s well-known theory of motivation was postulated in 1954, and

developed from his work to determine the attitude of workers towards their jobs. The
basic assumption of Herzberg’s theory is that motivation originates from the job itself,
and not from other external characteristics. The factors leading to job satisfaction
(‘motivators’) are separate and distinct from those leading to job dissatisfaction
(‘hygiene/maintenance’ factors) Herzberg (1966).

52
 Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Motivation Factors are those factors that Hygiene Factors are those Factors that deal
that deal with job content and lead to job with job context and lead to dissatisfaction.
satisfaction.
Growth Company policies and Administration
Work Itself Supervision
Responsibility Interpersonal Relations
Achievement Status
Advancement Working Conditions
Recognition Security
Salary

The hygiene factors, which may be equated with Maslow’s lower order needs, are placed
along a continuum, from a state of dissatisfaction, to no dissatisfaction. These factors
involve circumstances surrounding the task which do not lead to job satisfaction, but
prevent dissatisfaction, if maintained adequately. Examples of these maintenance factors
include the level of supervision, job status, work circumstances, service conditions,
remuneration and interpersonal relationships. Motivators, on the other hand, have a direct
positive effect on the work situation, and lead to improved productivity. They may be
equated with Maslow’s higher order needs, and are also placed along a continuum – from
a highly motivated to a highly unmotivated state. Aspects of the job itself, e.g. level of
recognition, pleasure of performance, increased responsibility, and opportunities for
advancement and promotion, serve as motivators Herzberg (1966).

The assumed independence of motivators and hygiene factors is a matter of some

controversy in the field, and the theory in general has accumulated little empirical
support. Nevertheless, the theory has had a major impact on organizational psychology
Baron et al (2002). It has led to the re- design of many jobs to allow for greater
participation of employees in planning, performing and evaluating their own work,
referred to as job enrichment Schultz and Schultz (1998). Motivation/hygiene theory has

53
been very successful in focusing attention on the importance of providing employees with
work that is meaningful to them Spector (2003).

Bassett-Jones & Lloyd (2005) suggests that the “content theorists led by Herzberg,
assumed a more complex interaction between both internal and external factors. It
explored the circumstances in which individuals respond to different internal and external
stimuli.

2.4.1. c. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y represent his ideas on motivation to
the direction and control of employees in the workplace. According to McGregor’s
Theory X, which articulates the traditional approach to motivation, people are not keen
on work, and try to avoid it where possible. As a result, employees must be coerced and
controlled by punitive measures to perform effectively. The average person is believed to
lack ambition, avoid responsibility, and strive for security and financial compensation
only. They are egocentric, and not at all mindful of organisational goals. Theory Y, in
contrast, reflects a more modern approach to motivation. People seek responsibility, and
are capable of creative problem solving. McGregor regarded Theory Y as a more accurate
and realistic portrayal of human behaviour, since it represents the integration of
individual and organisational goals. McGregor did, however, recognise that the theory
does not offer a complete explanation for employee motivation.

Gouws (1995) noted that McGregor’s theory closely resembles that of Maslow, in that
the factors McGregor believed act as motivators to people at work, are arranged and
satisfied in a similar hierarchy. McGregor also placed physiological needs first, followed
by physical and social needs. Egotistical needs are sub-categorised as self-regard needs
on the one hand, which involve self-respect, self-confidence, autonomy, achievement,
competence and knowledge. On the other hand needs such as the status, recognition,
respect and appreciation a person enjoys. The highest level of need is that of self-
fulfillment, which people attempt to satisfy through continued self-development and
creativity.

54
2.4.1. d. McClelland’s learned needs theory
McClelland’s theory, also referred to as the ‘Three-Needs’ theory Gouws (1995) or the
‘Achievement Motivation’ theory Schultz & Schultz (1998), was introduced in 1967. The
theory is based on the view that achievement-oriented people share three major needs.
These are not innate, but acquired through learning and experience McClelland (1966).
McClelland assigned a specific code to each of the three needs, which include:
 The need for Power (n/PWR), which denotes the need to control others, influence
their behaviour and be responsible for them;

 The need for Affiliation (n/AFF), which refers to the desire to establish and
maintain satisfying relationships with other people;

 The need for Achievement (n/ACH), viewed as behaviour directed towards

competition with standards of excellence.

Although not highly influential, McClelland’s theory of motivation was certainly

instrumental in focusing attention on the unusual needs of employees with a strong need
to achieve Beach (1980).

2.4.1. e. Hackman and Oldham’s task enrichment theory

Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham’s model, which was introduced in 1980 is also
known as the ‘job characteristics’ theory The theory is based on the premise that three
psychological states in particular are necessary to enhance a person’s motivation and job
satisfaction. They are
 The experience of work as meaningful
 The experience of work responsibility, i.e. the level of personal responsibility for
a person’s work
 Insight in job performance, i.e. how much insight a person has in how well or
how poorly he is performing on his job.

The more intense the experience of these three states, the higher the person’s motivation
level will be Porter, Lawler & Hackman (1975). The concept of task enrichment has

55
proven to be very meaningful and useful in the workplace. Therefore Hackman and
Oldham’s theory continues to stimulate investigation Tyagi (1985).

A meta-analysis of 200 studies, confirmed the positive relationship between job

characteristics, job satisfaction and performance Fried & Ferris (1987). Hackman and
Oldham also identified five task characteristics believed to lead to the above motivational
states. Fundamental to this theory is the notion that the need for personal development,
creativity and challenge has a very significant impact on the successful execution of a
meaningful task. In addition, due to differing individual drives and needs, different
people will respond differently to the same task Van Niekerk (1987). It developed out of
the authors’ research on objective measures of job characteristics that correlated with job
satisfaction and work attendance Schultz & Schultz (1998).

2.4.2 Cognitive theories

2.4.2. a. Equity theory

Equity theory was first introduced by Stacy Adams in 1965. Its basic tenet is that people
are motivated to achieve a condition of equity / fairness in their dealings with other
people, and with the organizations they work for. This theory helped to provide the basis
for studying the motivational implications of perceived unfairness and injustice in the
workplace. It also laid the foundation for more recent theories on distributive (how much
is allocated to each person) and procedural justice (how rewards and job requirements are
determined) Cropanzano & Folger (1996).
In a meta-analysis of many of these theories, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) found
that both distributive and procedural justice were related to job performance, job
satisfaction and the intention to quit.

People make judgements or comparisons between their own inputs at work, e.g. their
qualifications, experience and effort, and the outcomes they receive, e.g. pay and fringe
benefits, status and working conditions. They then assign weights to these inputs and
outputs according to their relevance and importance to themselves. The summed total

56
produces an output / input ratio, which is the key issue in terms of motivation. If a
person’s output / input ratio is equal to that of another person, equity exists. A state of
inequity leads to tension, which the individual tries to reduce by changing one or more
elements of the ratio, e.g. increase or reduce his effort. Perceived inequity by the person
is therefore the basis for motivation Baron et al. (2002).

Equity theory has stimulated much research, but there has been a decline in interest of
late because of its inability to predict people’s perception of the equitability of their
specific situation. Nevertheless, it has served to direct attention to the importance of
treating employees fairly, and the consequences of failing to do so Spector (2003).

2.4.2. b. Goal-setting theory

Goal-setting theory was first proposed by Edwin Locke in 1968. He described motivation
as the assumption that people’s behaviour is motivated by their internal intentions,
objectives or goals. In other words, by what people consciously want to achieve.

According to Locke and Henne (1986) goals affect behaviour in four ways:

 They direct attention and action to those behaviours which a person believes will
achieve a particular goal;

 They mobilise effort towards reaching the goal;

 They increase the person’s persistence, which results in more time spent on the
behaviours necessary to attain the desired goal;

 They motivate the person’s search for effective strategies for goal attainment.

There are several prerequisites for the goal-directed behaviour to effectively improve job
performance Locke & Henne (1986):

 a thorough commitment to the specific goal;

 regular feedback on the person’s performance towards attaining the goal;

57
 the more challenging the goal is perceived to be, the better the person’s
performance is likely to be;

 specific goals are more effective than vague goals, e.g. “do your best”;

 Self-set goals are preferred over organisationally set goals. If this is not entirely
possible, a person needs to at least have input into his own goals.

A meta-analysis of 72 on-the-job studies pointed out that goal setting produces

substantial increases in employee output Locke (1976). It is well supported by empirical
research evidence Locke & Latham (1990). This theory has an intuitive appeal because of
its clear relevance to the workplace Schultz & Schultz (1998).It is currently one of the
most popular theories informing organisational approaches to employee motivation
Spector (2003).

2.4.2. c. Expectancy theory

The original thinking behind what has come to be known as expectancy theory, or
Vroom’s Expectancy-Valence-Instrumentality (VIE) theory can be traced back to the
theorizing of Tolman and Levin in 1932 and 1938 respectively Petri (1996). Vroom was,
however, the first scholar to elaborate on this thinking in a motivational context in 1964
Gouws (1995). Since its origin in the psychological theorising of some 60 years ago, the
expectancy theory has been presented in many variations. Common to all versions is the
basic tenet that people base their behaviour on their beliefs and expectations regarding
future events, namely those maximally advantageous to them Baron et al., (2002).

Vroom’s original theory (1964) posits that motivation or force is a mathematical function
of three types of cognitions, Force = Expectancy x Σ (Valences x Instrumentalities).
Essentially, the theory explains how rewards lead to behaviour, through focusing on
internal cognitive states that lead to motivation. In other words, people are motivated to
action if they believe those behaviours will lead to the outcomes they want. The said
cognitive states are termed ‘expectancy’, ‘valence’ and ‘instrumentality’ Spector (2003).

58
Force is the person’s motivation to perform. Expectancy is the perceived probability that
a person has regarding his ability to perform the behaviour required to lead to a desired
outcome, e.g. working hard enough to secure a promotion. This aspect is similar to self-
esteem or self-confidence, which relates to a person’s belief that he can perform at the
required level. Valence is the value or the attractiveness of the outcome to the person.
Instrumentality is the perceived probability that a given behaviour will lead to the desired
outcome. There may be more than one outcome for each behavior. According to Vroom’s
formula, for each outcome a valence and instrumentality are multiplied, and each
resulting product then summed (Σ), and multiplied by the person’s expectancy, to
produce an overall force or motivation score Spector (2003).

Criticism
Expectancy theory has represented a popular and influential approach since its
introduction, but has been criticised for its assumption that people are as calculating and
rational in their decision-making. According to Hadebe (2001) the theory has limited use,
and is more valid for prediction of behaviour where effort–performance–rewards linkages
may be clearly perceived by the individual. It has also been criticised for failing to take
adequate account of people’s cognitive limitations Baron et al. (2002). Consequently,
there has been mixed levels of support for the theory’s usefulness in the workplace.

2.4.3. Reinforcement theories

Reinforcement theories, assume that people’s behaviour is determined by its perceived
positive or negative consequences. It is based on the ‘Law of Effect’ idea, which was first
postulated by Thorndike (1911), and further developed by Woodworth (1918) and Hull
(1943). Hull’s drive theory elaborated on this idea and suggested that effort was the
mathematical product of drive, multiplied by habit, and that habit was derived from
behaviour reinforcement.

According to Wiley (1997) “Modern approaches to motivation may be organized into

three related clusters: (1) personality-based views (2) cognitive choice or decision
approaches and (3) goal or self-regulation perspective. Personality-based views

59
emphasize the influence of enduring personal characteristics as they affect goal choice
and striving. Once employees have met the requirements of their own jobs, and attained
certain goals, they expect certain rewards to follow. In this regard, reinforcement theories
have contributed much towards the establishment of a wide array of reward and
performance incentives systems applied in organizations all over the world today Beach
(1980). As such, it provided the basis for the notion that rewards should be contingent
with individual units of productivity Schultz & Schultz (1998).

The term motivation has been used in numerous and often contradictory ways. Goal
directed behavior distinguishes employee’s motivated behaviors from other behavior. The
core of motivating individuals lies in the goal directed aspect of behavior. As a
motivation theory, reinforcement theory has fallen somewhat out of favour, as it merely
describes relations between reinforcement and behavior. This gives little insight into
motivational processes, e.g. whether or not a person wanted a specific reward, or why he
requires. Nevertheless, its relative popularity in the workplace is maintained by research
that has shown that rewards can be highly effective in the enhancement of job
performance. The consequences of behaviour may be tangible, such as money, or
intangible, such as praise Spector (2003).

Benner et al (1995) suggested “motivation is concern with how behavior gets started, is
energized, is Sustained, is directed, is stopped and what kind of subjective re-action is
present in the organization while this is going on. The primary focus was on how and
why questions of motivation, how a certain behavior starts, developed and sustained over
time. It is true that human behavior in general is dynamic and could affect the
individual’s personal altitude as well as factors surrounding that individual. These
exogenous factors eminent from the environment in which the individual operates
generate stimuli to employees. It is my belief that employees in general are goal seeking
and look for challenges and expect positive re-enforcement at all times. Hence it could
only be of benefit if organizations could provide these rewards and factors. Though
employees are financially motivated, motivation could be seen as a moving target, as
what Motivates differs among different people. They may even change from the same

60
person over a given period of time. Developments within the modern organization has
probably made motivating employees even more difficult due to the nature of every
individual, behavior increasing the complexity of what can really motivate employees.

According to Bassette-Jones & Lloyd (2005) “expectancy, equity, goal setting and
reinforcement theory have resulted in the development of a simple model of motivational
alignment. The model suggests that once the needs of employees are identified and
aligned in tune with organizational objectives that will lead to high motivation. If poorly
aligned, and then low motivation will be the outcome.For decades, organizational
scientists and practitioners alike have been fascinated by the happy productive worker
thesis. According to this hypothesis, happy employees exhibit higher levels of job-related
performance behaviors than do unhappy employees. However, despite years of research,
support for the happy productive worker thesis remains equivocal. These ambiguous
findings result from the variety of ways in which happiness has been operationalized.
Researchers have operationalized happiness as job satisfaction, as the presence of
positive effect, as the absence of negative effect, as the lack of emotional exhaustion, and
as psychological well-being. Some of these measures exhibit appreciable associations
with job performance; others do not. The circumflex framework is offered as a potentially
useful taxonomy for researchers interested in better understanding and promoting a happy
and productive workforce.

2.5. Job Satisfaction

Employee satisfaction over years has been a key area of research among industrial and
organizational psychologists. There are important reasons why organization should be
concerned with employee job satisfaction. This can be classified according to the focus
on the employee or the organization.
 First, the humanitarian perspective is that people deserve to be treated fairly and
with respect. Job satisfaction is the reflection of a good treatment. It also can be
considered as an indicator of emotional well-being or psychological health.

61
  Second, the utilitarian perspective is that job satisfaction can lead to behavior by
an employee that affects organizational functioning. Furthermore, job satisfaction
can be a reflection of organizational functioning.

Vroom (1964), need/value fulfilment theory, states that job satisfaction is negatively
related to the discrepancy between individual needs and the extent to which the job
supplies these needs. On the other hand, Porter and Lawler (1968) collect the influences
on job satisfaction in two groups of internal and external satisfactory factors. According
to them, internal satisfactory factors are related the work itself such as feeling of
independence, feeling of achievement, feeling of victory, self-esteem, feeling of control
and other similar feeling obtained from work. External satisfactory factors are not
directly related to work itself such as good relationships with colleagues, high salary,
good welfare and utilities.

According to the study conducted by Friedlander and Margulies (1969), it was discovered
that management & friendly staff relationships contribute to the level of job satisfaction.
However, this result contradicts with view of Herzberg (1966) who supported the view
that supervision is irrelevant to the level of job satisfaction. On the other hand, Arvey and
Dewhirst (1976), took 271 scientists as a study sample, and found that the degree of job-
satisfaction of the workers with high achievement motivation exceeded that of workers
with low achievement motivation. Also autonomy is an important concern for employees’
job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction has been defined as “feelings or affective responses to facets of the
(workplace) situation”Smith, Kendall, & Hulin (1969). Wanous and Lawler (1972) refers
job satisfaction is the sum of job facet satisfaction across all facets of a job. The
importance attached to job satisfaction was already significant during the first part of the
20th century. Locke (1976) reported, over 3000 articles and research studies which were
published between 1935 and 1976 – on an average of one publication every five days.

62
Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state,
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job experiences.” In general, therefore, job
satisfaction refers to an individual’s positive emotional reactions to a particular job. Job
satisfaction has been one of the most extensively researched topics in the field of "why
we work."

Job Satisfaction has been playing a protagonist role in management research, namely
regarding the job satisfaction-job performance relationship Petty et al (1984). Job
satisfaction comprises employee feelings regarding multiple aspects of the job. There is
also a cognitive component to job satisfaction. This cognitive component is made up of
judgments and beliefs about the job whereas the affective component comprises feelings
and emotions associated with the job. Job satisfaction is also believed to be dispositional
in nature. Another study that has supported the dispositional nature of job satisfaction
found a strong and consistent relationship in attitudes over time as well as a relationship
in attitudes across different situations or settings Staw & Ross (1985).

The concept of job satisfaction enjoys increasing attention from organizations these days,
as it leads to organisational effectiveness. Managers now feel morally responsible for
maintaining high levels of job satisfaction among their staff, most probably primarily for
its impact on productivity, absenteeism and staff turnover, as well as on union activity
Arnold & Feldman (1986). Furthermore, it is the degree to which employees enjoy their
jobs McCloskey and McCain (1987

Rusbult and et al (1983) made a significant contribution to understanding employee-

employer exchange relationships by outlining and testing a model of responses to low job
satisfaction. They suggested primary exchange variables would affect the propensity for
an employee to exhibit a particular type of response behavior. Among these were the
level of overall job satisfaction, and the quality of job alternatives. Behavioral responses
were categorized as exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Types of behavior that fall into each
category are illustrated as follows: exit or quit, transfer, search for a different job, think
about quitting; voice or discuss problems with the supervisor or co-workers, suggest

63
solutions, seek help from an outside agency; loyalty or waiting and hoping for
improvement, trusting the organization to do the right thing; neglect or reduced interest or
effort, chronic lateness or absenteeism, using company time for personal business,
increased error rate. The responses relate to one another systematically by differing along
the dimensions of constructiveness versus destructiveness and activity versus passivity.
Hence the influences on job satisfaction can be also divided into work-related and
employee-related factors Glisson and Durick (1988).

One reason for this dispositional nature of job satisfaction could come from an
individual’s genetic makeup. Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, and Abraham (1989) found
support for a genetic component to job satisfaction in their study of monozygotic, or
identical, twins reared apart. They found that even when they were not raised together,
identical twins tended to have job satisfaction levels that were significantly correlated.
Because identical twins have the same genetic makeup but are reared apart and as such
do not have the same environmental influences, this similarity in job satisfaction ratings
is argued to represent a genetic component. Job satisfaction, therefore, is seen by many as
fundamental in the world of work. Rosenthal (1989).Given the extensive volume of
research on the topic, little is known about what causes job satisfaction and how the
causal processes have actually worked Jewell (1990).

Reilly (1991) defines job satisfaction as the feeling that a worker has about his job or a
general attitude towards work or a job and it is influenced by the perception of one’s job.
Why do people work? While conventional wisdom dictates that people work for money,
other factors should also be considered. There are psychological, sociological, religious
and cultural reasons to explain why people work. Also consider the role of family,
gender, age, personal beliefs and attitudes regarding why people work (or don't work)
McDaniels (1992). Job satisfaction has an affective or emotional response towards
various aspects of an employee’s work. Judge and Watanabe (1993) reinforced this idea
by stating that there exists a positive and reciprocal relationship between job and life
satisfaction in the short term, and that over time, general life satisfaction becomes more
influential in a person’s life. Some people like to work and they find working an

64
important part of their lives. Some people on the other hand find work unpleasant and
work only because they have to.

Job satisfaction tells how much people like their jobs. Job satisfaction is the most studied
field of organizational behavior. It is important to know the level of satisfaction at work
for many reasons and the results of the job satisfaction studies affect both the workers
and the organization. In the workers’ point of view it is obvious that people like to be
treated fairly. If workers feel respected and satisfied at work it could be a reflection of a
good treatment. In the organization’s point of view good job satisfaction can lead to
better performance of the workers which affects the result of the company. Employee
satisfaction is generally considered as the driver of the employee retention and employee
productivity. Satisfied employees are a precondition for increasing productivity,
responsiveness, quality, and customer service Kaplan (1996).

The search for a relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been
referred to as the ‘Holy Grail’ of organizational behavior research Weiss and Cropanzano
(1996). Companies typically measure employee satisfaction with an annual survey, or a
rolling survey in which a specified percentage of randomly chosen employees is surveyed
each month. Interviews would give wider and better answers but they are time and money
consuming, and questionnaires are easier to compose, deliver and analyze. Elements in an
employee satisfaction survey could include involvement with decision making,
recognition for doing a good job, access to sufficient information to do the job well,
active encouragement to be creative and use initiative, support level from staff functions
and overall satisfaction with company Kaplan (1996). Arnold and Feldman (1986),
promoted factors such as temperature, lighting, ventilation, hygiene, noise, working
hours, and resources as part of working conditions.

Spector, (1997) says job satisfaction is simply how people feel about their jobs and
different aspects of their jobs. It is the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike
(dissatisfaction) their jobs. As is generally assessed, job satisfaction is an attitudinal
variable. In this context, job satisfaction can be considered as a global feeling about the

65
job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects or facets of the job.
Each reason is sufficient to justify concern with job satisfaction. Combined they explain
and justify the attention that is paid to this important variable. Managers in many
organizations share the concerns of researches for the job satisfaction of employees. The
assessment of job satisfaction is a common activity in many organizations where
management feels that employee well-being is important.

Spector refers to job satisfaction in terms of how people feel about their jobs and
different aspects of their jobs. Individualism and collectivism are perhaps the most useful
and powerful dimensions of cultural variation in explaining a diverse array of social
behavior. Despite being conducted at widely different times, with different samples, and
using different methods the results of major studies of national variation in value
orientations all feature the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism. This
convergence suggests these dimensions are broad cultural syndromes encompassing more
basic elements. They are particularly appropriate in this context because the nature of the
exchange that individual's have with their employer involves the extent to which
individuals perceive themselves to be part of the larger organization, and individualism
and collectivism can be described to what extent they want to contribute to the
organization and what benefits they are looking for. Cultural factors include underlying
attitudes, beliefs and values. The organization that is searching for improvements and
greater work performance from the workers it is highly important to take in notice
cultural factors of the workforce. With the under-standing of cultural diversity the
company can construct successful strategies, management styles, and keep the employees
motivated and satisfied.

Spector’s monograph on job satisfaction related a story about how IBM has conducted
employee opinion surveys which, among other things, attempted to measure job
satisfaction. The high level of job satisfaction at IBM has been equated to an effective
business climate, low turnover rate and an outstanding company reputation. In addition,
Spector reported that this high level of employee satisfaction at IBM has resulted in
attracting high-quality job applicants. By identifying the elements of job satisfaction, and

66
then making the necessary changes in corporate policies, procedures and benefits, it is
reasoned that organizations can duplicate the IBM experience.

Schultz and Schultz (1998) emphasized that people spend one third to one half of their
waking hours at work, for a period of 40 to 45 years, and that this is a very long time to
be frustrated, dissatisfied and unhappy, especially since these feelings carry over to
family and social life, and affect physical and emotional health. A concept with such
tremendous effect on personal and organizational life clearly deserves a corresponding
amount of attention. In other words, it is an affective reaction to a job that results from
the comparison of perceived outcomes with those that are desired. Job satisfaction is an
attitude of an employee over a period of his/her job so the factors of job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction changes over the period of time. However, in today's business climate of
continuous changes and uncertainty, the importance of job satisfaction to organizational
performance and individual can be “pay”. Job satisfaction is an attitude and measuring
attitudes at workplace is not an easy task.

Job satisfaction studies have provided substantial evidence that organizational outcomes
such as the profitability of a business unit, turnover, absenteeism, performance and
grievances can be traced directly to how satisfied employees are with their company and
their jobs. "Several very large organizations, such as Sears, Southwest Air and USAA
Insurance Co., have taken measures aimed expressly at increasing job satisfaction of their
employees" Starkweather & Steinbacher (1998). Lower convenience costs, higher
organizational and social and intrinsic reward will increase job satisfaction Mulinge and
Mullier (1998).

Apart from the bread and butter the organization used to act as their sanctuary and no one
was much concerned about the job itself or job satisfaction. Over the period of time
employees have witnessed several eras in modern business history and the concept of
treating humans as assets of the organization has flourished and has done wonders around
the world in terms of growth of companies. The concept of job satisfaction has emerged
and now there are several factors contributing to it which are monetary and non-

67
monetary. Job satisfaction is the favorableness or un-favorableness with which
employees view their work and it is affected by both the internal and external
environment of the organization.

Job satisfaction has significance towards human health both physical and mental and is
positively or negatively correlated. Employees spend a major part of their lives at the
workplace hence the factors related to job satisfaction and employee behavior and their
implications are important to measure Oshagbemi (1999). Job design affect the job
satisfaction, as jobs that are rich in behavioral elements such as variety autonomy, task
importance and feedback contribute to employee’s satisfaction. Similarly the employee’s
acceptance by the work group is important to job satisfaction. To sum up each element of
the organization environment and system can contribute to or detract from job
satisfaction William & Keith (2000).

According to Gibson et al (2000) job satisfaction may be defined as an individual’s

expression of personal well-being associated with doing the job assigned. Job satisfaction
depends on the level of intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes and how the jobholder views
those outcomes. These outcomes have different values for different people. For some
people, responsible and challenging work may have neutral or even negative value
depending on their education and prior experience to work providing intrinsic outcomes.
For other people, such work outcomes may have high positive values. People differ in the
importance they attach to the job outcomes. Those differences would account for
different levels of job satisfaction for essentially the same job tasks.

Job satisfaction is simply defined as the affective orientation that an employee has
towards his or her work Price (2001). The importance of job satisfaction in the workplace
is underscored by its inextricable connection to a person’s entire life. Since a person’s job
is an important part of his life, it follows that job satisfaction is part of life satisfaction.
The nature of the environment outside of the job directly influences a person’s feelings
and behaviour on the job Hadebe (2001).

68
Researchers have acknowledged that job satisfaction is a phenomenon best described as
having both cognitive (thoughts) and affective (feelings) character. Opkara(2002)
suggested that employee reports of affect at work can be used to measure job satisfaction.
Those affective experiences while on the job are also a cause of job satisfaction. In other
words, employee job satisfaction is the affective state of employees regarding multiple
facets of their jobs. It is an affective reaction to a job that results from the person’s
comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired, anticipated, or deserved.

Organizations recognise that having a workforce that derives satisfaction from their work,
contributes hugely towards organisational effectiveness and ultimate survival. Job
satisfaction is regarded as related to important employee and organisational outcomes,
ranging from job performance to health and longevity Spector (2003). The dispositional
source of job satisfaction has been supported by studies that show stability in job
satisfaction, both over time and over different situations Ilies & Judge (2004).

The study of job satisfaction is a topic of wide interest to both people who work in
organizations and people who study them. Job satisfaction has been closely related with
many organizational phenomena such as motivation, performance, leadership, attitude,
conflict, moral etc. Researchers have attempted to identify the various components of job
satisfaction, measure the relative importance of each component of job satisfaction and
examine what effects these components have on employees’ productivity. In research, job
satisfaction has been assessed using global aspects as well as multiple facets like salary,
career progression, supervisor, etc Fisher et al (2003).

During the literature review various models have been followed by different researchers
which included various theories. Frederick Hertzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory
proposes that intrinsic factors are related to job satisfaction and motivation, whereas
extrinsic factors are associated with job dissatisfaction. This theory is not much used by
researchers because of its simplicity as the environment have changed a lot yet many
organizations uses their job design techniques based on this theory. The higher the
education level the lower is the job satisfaction Nguyen, Taylor, & Bradley (2003).

69
Work conditions are defined as an employee’s work place, work instruments, the work
itself, organization policy, and organizational rules. The dispositional approach of job
satisfaction is not a mirage and individual dispositions do indeed affect job satisfaction
Staw & Cohen-Charash (2005). Variables of encouragement, feedback, a widening pay
scale and clear job description, career development opportunity, supportive leadership
style, easy communication with colleagues and social interaction positively affect job
satisfaction, whereas role stress has a negative influence on it Mrayyan (2005)

The level of job satisfaction is affected by intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors. The
research showed that the key factors affecting job satisfaction are career opportunities;
job influence, teamwork and job challenge Armstrong (2006). This notion that satisfied
employees will perform their work more effectively is the basis of many theories of
performance, reward, job design and leadership Shipton et al. (2006). Job satisfaction
describes the feelings, attitudes or preferences of individuals regarding work Chen
(2006).

Job satisfaction consists of a number of separate dimensions. The level of job satisfaction
is affected by a wide range of variables relating to individual, social, cultural,
organizational and environmental factors. Rarely can organizations guarantee uniformly
high job satisfaction among members. Thus, behavioral responses of employees to low
job satisfaction, such as absenteeism, turnover, and dissent, are of continuing interest.
Also, increased globalization and changing work force demographics increased the
complexities associated with managing workers. These factors suggest a practical
concern for understanding cultural differences in the nature of exchange relationships
which employees have with their employer and their responses to low job satisfaction in
particular Mullins (2007).

Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction not only depends on the nature of the job, it also
depend on the expectation what’s the job supply to an employee Hussami (2008).
Consequently, numerous researches have been going on job satisfaction for many years.
It is common thought that job satisfaction influences organizational behavior, namely it

70
positively affects employee working performance and organizational commitment, and
negatively influences employee turnover Agarwal and Ferrat, 2001; Poulin (1994); Chen
(2006).

Job satisfaction is an attitude that relates to overall attitudes towards life, or life
satisfaction as well as to service quality Illies et al. (2009). Regardless of the success
scholars are proving the connection between Job Satisfaction and Performance, the latter
remains one of the most prominent variables in study in business science and
organizational behavior Spagnoli et al (2012). This subject seems to be relevant for
scholars, managers and employees alike. It is relevant for scholars interested in the
subjective evaluation of work conditions.

2.6. Theories of Job Satisfaction

To help understand the antecedents of job satisfaction, it is informative to examine the
theories of job satisfaction. A recent review of the literature on this subject suggested that
there are four commonly discussed theories on job satisfaction. These include Herzberg,
Mausner and Snyderman's Two-factor Theory (1959), and the Instrumentality Theory
Porter & Lawler (1968).

2.6.1. Two-Factor Theory

The two-factor theory or motivation-hygiene theory was the result of research done in
1957 that led to the belief that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are entirely separate
issues. Herzberg et al. (1959) postulated that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are
not two extremes of the same continuum but are separate entities, and the factors that
produce job satisfaction have no impact whatsoever on job dissatisfaction.

Herzberg’s two-factor theory postulates that Maslow's lower level needs are a separate
issue as compared to the higher needs in the Maslow theory-of-need hierarchy Maslow
(1943). The physiological and safety needs are considered to be "maintenance" or
hygiene and a lack of fulfillment of these needs results in job dissatisfaction.
Interestingly, the two-factor theory suggests that job satisfaction is not produced when

71
these maintenance needs are met. These lower level needs are necessary but are not
sufficient to qualify as agents of job satisfaction. The two-factor theory stipulates that job
satisfaction is indicated only when Maslow's higher level needs have been met. These
higher needs are affection, social standing, esteem and self-actualization, and are known
as intrinsic factors of job satisfaction Herzberg et al (1959).

The two-factor theory has stimulated much research but little empirical support. A
notable exception to this lack of support is a journal article that was written by Brockman
(1971). Brockman defended Herzberg’s theory and concluded that the data available at
the time supported the two-factor theory. Similarly, Moreno's (1998) dissertation on the
job satisfaction of health care workers concluded that there is general support to
Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Health care workers whose hygiene
needs had been met experienced less dissatisfaction and those who experienced higher
levels of community integration reported more job satisfaction.

2.6.2. Instrumentality Theory

The instrumentality theory is derived from a generic set of principles called the general
expectancy theory. The general expectancy theory is a cognitive approach to work
motivation first proposed by Vroom (1964). The general expectancy theory was modified
by Porter and Lawler (1968) into what is known as the instrumentality theory. This
theory posits that it is the worker's expectation that if a job is done in a satisfactory
manner, the payoff will be automatic and that job satisfaction will inevitably follow. In
addition, the theory holds that there is a correlation between the amount of effort
expended on a job and the reward expected. There is little support in the literature for this
theory. One notable exception to the criticisms of the instrumentality theory is a study
that was done by Arvey (1972). Arvey’s participants were divided into two groups: high
expectancy participants who were told that they were among the top performers in the
company, and low-expectancy participants who were not told this. As predicted,
participants in the high-expectancy condition (likelihood of 75%) performed better on an
experimental production test than did participants in the low-expectancy condition.

72
2.6.3. Need Discrepancy Theory
Lyman Porter's 1961 study examined how Abraham Maslow's needs hierarchy would
predict the job satisfaction of business people and professionals. Porter’s theory suggests
that most business professionals' basic needs have already been met, and that satisfaction
comes about as the person achieves higher levels in the need hierarchy. Satisfaction also
results from low discrepancy between what a person needs and what the job offers.
Woods’ (1998) study of empowerment and the job satisfaction of Navy/Marine officers
confirmed elements of Porter’s theory. Results of the Woods’ study show that job
satisfaction is strongly related to empowerment. The findings also showed that intrinsic
job satisfaction is more closely related to empowerment than is extrinsic job satisfaction.
Additional support for the need discrepancy theory came from a study done by
Szymanski & Parker (1995). Counseling professionals who hired-on or stayed with their
respective agencies due to autonomy and challenge were most likely to be satisfied with
their job and more likely to stay.

2.6.4. Facet Satisfaction Theory

The facet satisfaction theory posits that the concept of job satisfaction is not one
dimensional. Job satisfaction must be taken apart so that its elements can be examined.
The general idea is that each element can be measured and that the concept of job
satisfaction is simply the sum of its parts. Some of the facets that might be examined are
compensation, working conditions, security, variety, independence, advancement,
responsibility, and achievement.

2.7. Studies on employee job satisfaction

Previous research on job satisfaction variables can be organized into four groups
Topolosky (2000).

 The first group includes some earlier work identifying the elements of job
satisfaction and the effect of personal factors such as age, gender, and experience
of employees. Mottaz’s (1987) research showed that worker satisfaction varies

73
 directly with age and that older workers tend to be more satisfied with their jobs
than younger workers (as cited in Topolosky, 2000).
 The second group focuses on the impact of social dynamics on employee
satisfaction and individual performance, such as communication, participation,
recognition, development, leadership, and commitment. Ludeman (1989) asserted
that it is a basic psychological. People who receive attention, recognition, and
praise from others become more cooperative and hard working (as cited in
Topolosky (2000).
 The third group includes studies that researched relationships between employee
satisfaction and organizational processes, such as compensation systems and
innovative work practices. According to Berlet and Cravens (1991), employee
compensation systems can enhance job satisfaction and create high levels of
motivation which could translate into productivity (as cited by Philips, 1996).
 Finally, the fourth group includes studies investigating the impact of employee
satisfaction on organizational performance. The research by Bartel (1994)
demonstrated a link between the adoption of training programs and firm financial
performance as well as productivity growth (as cited in Topolosky (2000).

2.8. Employee Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

Job performance is most commonly referred to whether a person performs their job well.
Despite the confusion over how it should be exactly defined, performance is an extremely
important criterion that relates to organizational outcomes and success. Some people
argue that performance can be thought of as actual results vs. desired results. Campbell
(1990) defined performance as individual behavior, which differentiates from outcome,
because there are more factors that determine outcomes than just an employee’s
behaviors and actions. He also pointed out that job performance must be directed towards
organizational goals that are relevant to the job or role. He conceptualized it as a
multidimensional construct consisting of more than one kind of behavior.

In the service industry, employee job performance is extremely critical to the success of
an organization. Because of the unique characteristics of service compared to goods, such

74
as intangibility, heterogeneity, simultaneous production and consumption, “employees
are service and the brand” Zeithaml et al. (2006). In the service sector, one of the
“conventional wisdom” is that high employee satisfaction results in good service. Many
researchers studied on the linkage between employee satisfaction and its possible service
outcome such as customer satisfaction and service performance.

2.9. Job Satisfaction in banks

The paradigm of the banking sector changed with the emergence of plastic money and
online transfers etc. Thus the technological pay and breakthroughs affected the banking
sector and numerous career opportunities were created in this sector in all disciplines.
The paradigm shifted from a financial sector to a services sector where providing quality
service to the customer became the ultimate goal of the bank. Due to heavy inflow of
multinational banks, a new culture was emerging in the banking sector which was based
on performance based rewards and compensations. This has brought higher employment
opportunities, increases in income level, and changes in consumption pattern and
consequently there emerges a competitive environment in the industry.

The following paragraphs present the brief review of literature on the job satisfaction of
employees at banks, A few research studies Srivastava et al (1980); Srivastava and Locke
(2001) report that private sector employees in general have higher job satisfaction as
compared to those of public sector organization while certain other studies reported the
reverse trend. Though, a few research studies indicate a positive relationship between job
satisfaction and occupational level, some studies however Anantharaman et al (1982)
found no relationship between job satisfaction and occupational level.

Hoque et al (1992) has examined the job satisfaction and job behavior of Private sector
industrial workers and supervisors. The results reveal that job satisfaction score of the
workers was higher than that of the supervisors. The study also indicates that job
satisfaction has significant impact on performance of the enterprise. Moreover Job
insecurity poor salary has been considered as the most important cause of job
dissatisfaction of the employees. Purohit and Belal (1996) have conducted a study on job

75
satisfaction of professional accountants. The results of the study has showed that the
professional accountants are moderately satisfied with their job. The results also show
that there is a positive correlation between age and job satisfaction.

Islam (2004) has made a study to assess and compare the job satisfaction, absenteeism
and turnover of workers of the Textile Industry. One of the main finding of the study is
that job satisfaction has significantly negative correlation with absenteeism and turnover.
Saari and Judge (2004) have examined the relationship between employee attitude and
job satisfaction. In this study they have identified the causes of employee attitude, the
results of positive or negative job satisfaction and also measuring influence of employee
attitude.

Karami and Mallick (2005) made a study on job satisfaction level and the impact of
education on industrial workers. The main finding of the study is that there exist no
relationship between monthly income and job satisfaction of the workers. A weak
relationship exists between designation and job satisfaction and between education and
income of workers. Another study conducted on factors influencing the job satisfaction of
faculty members showed that the faculty members are generally satisfied with their job;
however male faculty members were less satisfied than female faculty members. A
number of studies Srivastava (1980); Srivastava and Locke (2001); Hoque (1992);
Prabhu (2003) and Islam (2004)) focus on the job satisfaction of different private and
corporate sector, industry workers, managers, university employees and different
government employees.

Summary
Motivating the workforce of an organization to work more effectively towards the
organization’s goals is perhaps the most fundamental task of management. Organizations
motivate their workforce to perform effectively by offering those rewards for satisfactory
performance and perhaps punishing them for unsatisfactory performance. Over the past
hundred years or so there has been an evolution in the view of what the term ‘rewards’
actually means in an organizational context.

76
Summary of the Motivation theories
Each of the theories covered has contributed substantially towards current perspectives
on and understanding of the concept of motivation in the workplace. The needs theories
are largely responsible for organizations’ recognition that people’s behaviour at work is
motivated by highly individualized innate needs and desires. Achievement-orientated
people are, driven by a much stronger need for power, affiliation and achievement than
most other people. For this reason, employers need to ensure that they invest the
necessary time and effort to assess the personal needs of individual employees, and
customize their jobs and working environments accordingly. Due to their innate need to
produce good work and develop themselves, most employees do not need constant
supervision and direction and may, in fact, find such actions very de motivating. In
addition, people need to experience their work as meaningful and challenging, and
therefore require considerable input on the part of management to ensure a high degree of
job enrichment on a continual basis.

The cognitive theories of motivation have helped employers to understand that, apart
from their motivation being driven by innate needs, employees also apply deliberate
conscious thought to their behavior at work. Organizations’ are aware that people
evaluate their inputs on the job against what they receive in return, and that they should
therefore pay attention to the equitability between employee delivery and reward. It is
also prudent for organizations to offer a range of benefits, which may be acquired
through different levels of performance, to allow employees to set themselves
challenging goals that they may attain via differing means they may perceive as
instrumental towards those goals.

ERG theory states that there are three basic human needs: Existence, relatedness and
growth, which must be meet by an employee to enable him, increase performance.
Maslow suggests that human needs can be classified into five categories and that these
categories can be arranged in a hierarchy of importance. These include physiological,
security, belongings, esteem and self-actualization needs. According to the theory, a
person is motivated first and foremost to satisfy physiological needs. As long as the

77
employees remain unsatisfied, they turn to be motivated only to fulfill them. When
physiological needs are satisfied they cease to act as primary motivational factors and the
individual moves “up” the hierarchy and seek to satisfy security needs. This process
continues until finally self actualization needs are satisfied. According to Maslow, the
rationale is quite simple because employees who are too hungry or too ill to work will
hardly be able to make much a contribution to productivity hence difficulties in meeting
organizational goals.

Vroom proposes that people are motivated by how much they want something and how
likely they think they are to get it he suggest that motivation leads to efforts and the
efforts combined with employees ability together with environment factors which
interplay’s resulting to performance. This performance interns lead to various outcomes,
each of which has an associated value called Valence.

Adams, on his part suggests that people are motivated to seek social equity in the
Rewards they receive for high performance. According to Adams, the outcome from job
includes; pay, recognition, promotion, social relationship and intrinsic reward .to get
these rewards various inputs needs to be employed by the employees to the job as time,
experience, efforts, education and loyalty. He suggests that, people tend to view their
outcomes and inputs as a ratio and then compare these ratios with others and turn to
become motivated if this ratio is high.

Taylor observed the soldering by employees, which is a situation whereby workers work
less than full capacity. He argued that soldering occurs due to the fact employee’s fear
that performing high will lead to increasing productivity, which might cause them to lose
their jobs. This slow paces of work where promoted by faulty systems however this
situation is not what prevails with contemporary employees who organizations evaluate
them through their performance. Herzberg suggested that there are factors in a job, which
causes satisfaction. These he called intrinsic factors (motivators) and other factor he
refers to as dissatisfies (hygiene factors). According to him if the motivational factors are
met, the employee becomes motivated and hence performs higher.

78
Mac Gregory suggested that there exist two sets of employees (lazy and ambitious
employees) with lazy employees representing theory X, hard and ambitious workers
representing Y. According to him the lazy employee should be motivated to increase
performance in an organization. Geogopalaus path Goal theory of motivation states that,
if a worker sees high productivity as a path leading to the attainment of one or more of
his personal goals, he will turn to be a high producer. But if he sees low productivity as
the path leading to the attainment of his goal he will turn to be a low producer and hence
needs to be motivated. This discussion on the above motivational theories explains the
fact that the concept of employee’s motivation has been a critical factor addressed by
previous authors as what determines the core competence of every organization in
achieving a competitive position. Skinner who propounded that any behavior that is
rewarded tends to be repeated supported this view.

Job satisfaction studies have provided substantial evidence that organizational outcomes
such as the profitability of a business unit, turnover, absenteeism, performance and
grievances can be traced directly to how satisfied employees are with their company and
their jobs. Job satisfaction represents one of the most complex areas when it comes to
managing their employees. Although thousands of papers and research have been
conducted on job satisfaction all over the world, many studies have demonstrated an
unusually large impact on the job satisfaction on the motivation of workers, while the
level of motivation has an impact on productivity, and hence also on performance of
organizations.

Studies on employee job satisfaction reflected that job satisfaction can be organized in
four groups; the first group includes some earlier work identifying the elements of job
satisfaction and the effect of personal factors such as age, gender, and experience of
employees. The second group focuses on the impact of social dynamics on employee
satisfaction and individual performance, such as communication, participation,
recognition, development, leadership, and commitment. The third group includes studies
that researched relationships between employee satisfaction and organizational processes,
such as compensation systems and innovative work practices and the fourth group

79
includes studies investigating the impact of employee satisfaction on organizational
performance.

The paradigm of the banking sector changed with the emergence of plastic money and
online transfers etc. Thus the technological pay and breakthroughs affected the banking
sector and numerous career opportunities were created in this sector in all disciplines.
The paradigm shifted from a financial sector to a services sector where providing quality
service to the customer became the ultimate goal of the bank. Due to heavy inflow of
multinational banks, a new culture was emerging in the banking sector which was based
on performance based rewards and compensations. This has brought higher employment
opportunities, increases in income level, and changes in consumption pattern and
consequently there emerges a competitive environment in the industry. A few research
studies reported that private sector employees in general have higher job satisfaction as
compared to those of public sector organizations while certain other researches study
reported the reverse trend. Though, a few research studies indicate a positive relationship
between job satisfaction and occupational level, some studies however found no
relationship between job satisfaction and occupational level.

80
 REFERENCES

 Agarwal, R. and Ferratt, T.W. (2001), “Crafting and HR strategy to meet the need

for IT workers”, Communications of the ACM, 44 (7): 58-64.

 Ajila, C.O. (1997), Job Motivation and Attitude to Work as Correlates of

Productivity Among Workers in Manufacturing Companies in Lagos State.

Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology

O.A.U Ile-Ife Osun State, Nigeria.

 Alderfer, C.P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142 – 175.
 Anantharaman, and shamsad Begum, (1982), “Job Involvement among Bank

Employees,‟ Indian journal of applied phycology, pp.1-19.

 Armstrong Michael (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management

Practice 10th edition, Cambridge, UK, University Press.

 Arnold, H.J. & Feldman, D.C. (1986). Organizational behavior. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

 Arvey, R. D, and Dewhirt, H.D. (1976), “Relationships between goal clarity,

participation in goal-setting, and personality characteristics on job-satisfaction in

a scientific organization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (1): 103-105.

 Arvey, R. D. (1972). Task performance as a function of perceived effort.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 423-433.

 Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job

satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied.

81
 Baron, H., Henley, S., McGibbon, A. & McCarthy, T. (2002). Motivation

questionnaire manual and user’s guide. Sussex: Saville and Holdsworth Limited.

 Bartel, A. P. (1994) Productivity gains from the implementation of employee

training programs. Industrial Relations, 33, pp.411-445.

 Bassett-Jones N, Lloyd GC (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have

staying power? J. Manage. Develop. 24(10): 929-943.

 Beach, D.S. (1980). Personnel: The management of people at work (4th ed.). New

York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.

 Beck, R.C. (1983). Motivation: Theories and principles (2nd ed.). New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

 Benner, A., Jones, D., (1995) ‘Employee Participation, Ownership and

Productivity: A Theoretical Framework’, Industrial Relations, Vol. 34, No. 4:

532-553

 Berlet, K. R. and Cravens, D. M. (1991) Performance pay as a competitive

weapon: a compensation policy model for the 1990s. New York New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 Bong, M. (1996) ‘Problems in Academic Motivation Research and Advantages

andDisadvantages of Their Solutions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology,

Vol. 21, No.2: 149-165

 Bowen, CF, Radhakrishna, R, and Keyser. R, (1994), “Job satisfaction and

commitment of 4-H agents”, Journal of Extension, [online], 32 (1).

 Brockman, V. M. (1971). The Herzberg controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24,

155-189.

82
 Cai, B. (1993). The Impact of Employee Motivation on Hotel Service and

Employee Turnover- A Comparison Between Two Properties in China and The

United States. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout,

Menomonie, Wisconsin, United States.

 Campbell, J. P. (1990) Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial

and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds.),

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp.687-732). Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

 Campbell, J.P. & Pritchard, R.D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and

organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (pp.63 – 130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

 Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors the motivate business

faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education

for Business, 8, 179-189.

 Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1985). The

determinants of salesperson performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing

Research, 22, 103-118.

 Cofer, C.N. & Appley, M.H. (1968). Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.

 Cropanzano, R. & Folger, R. (1996). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In

R.M. Steers, L.W. Porter & G.A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at

work (pp. 147 – 182). New York: McGraw-Hill.

83
 Daschler, P. J. and Ninemeier, J. D. (1984). Supervision in the Hospitality

Industry. East Lansing, MI: Educational Institute American Hotel & Motel

Association

 Deci EL (1975). Intrinsic motivation. London: Plennum Press.

 Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1998). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic

motivation: Clear and reliable effects. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Rochester.

 Dessler, G. (1980). Human Behavior: Improving Performance at Work. Reston,

VA: Reston Publishing Company, Inc.

 Drummond, K. E. (1990). Human Resource Management for the Hospitality

Industry. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

 Du Toit, M.A. (1990). Motivering (Motivation). In J. Kroon (Ed.), Algemene

bestuur (General management) (2nd ed.) (pp.83 – 92). Pretoria : HAUM.

 Fisher, Cynthia D. (2003), "Why Do Lay People Believe That Satisfaction and

Performance Are Correlated? Possible Sources of a Commonsense Theory",

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6): 753-77.

 Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal

motivation. Cheltenham, UK; Brookfield, VT.: Edward Elgar.

 Frey, B. S. and Jegen, R.. 2001. Motivation crowding theory. Journal of

Economic Surveys, 15(5): 589-611.

 Frey, B., & Osterloch, M. (2002). Succesful Managment by Motivation -

Balancing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Incentives. Zurich: Springer.

84
 Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A

review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287 – 322.

 Friedlander, F., and Margulies. N (1969) Multiple Impacts of Organization

Climate and Individual Values System upon Job Satisfaction,Personnel

Psychology. 22, pp. 177-183.

 Gibson, James, L., Ivancevich, John, M. and Donnelly, Jr. James, H. (2000).

Organizations – Behavior – Structure – Processes. 10th Edition. Boston.

McGraw-Hill.

 Glisson, C.V. and Durick, M. (1988), “Predictors of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment in human service organizations”, Administrative

Quarterly, 33 (1): 61-68.

 Gouws, A. (1995). The relationship between motivation and job satisfaction of a

group of information specialists. M.Bib. dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University,

Johannesburg.

 Greenberg, J.( 1990), “Employee theft as a re action to underpayment in equity:

The hidden cost of pay cuts,” Journal of Applied Psychology ,Vol.75, pp.561-

568.

 Hadebe, T.P. (2001). Relationship between motivation and job satisfaction of

employees at Vista Information Services. M.A. dissertation, Rand Afrikaans
University, Johannesburg. 195
 Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing.

 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B. (1959) The motivation to work, New

York: John Wiley & Sons

85
 Hoque, khoddoker Bazlul and Mosharraf Hossain,1992 „Perceived importance of

different job facets and overall job satisfaction of industrial workers in

Bangladesh: An empirical study‟, Journal of Business

Administration,Vol.18,No.3&4.pp.115 126.

 Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P., de Jonge, J., & Nijhuis, F. J. (2001). Specific

relationships between Generations and Motivation 13.

 Hussami. AL M (2008). A Study of nurses' job satisfaction: The relationship to

organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, transactional

leadership, transformational leadership, and level of education. Eur. J. Sci. Res.,

22(2): 286-295.

 Ilies R. And Judge T.A (2004). On the heritability of Job Satisfaction: the

mediating role of personality Journal of applied psychology, 88, 750-759.

 Islam M.M. 2004, “ Relationionship Between Job Satisfaction, Absenteeism and

Turnover of Workers of the textile Industry in Bangladesh” Journal of Business

Studies, Vol.2 No.1.

 Islam M.M. 2004, “ Relationionship Between Job Satisfaction, Absenteeism and

Turnover of Workers of the textile Industry in Bangladesh” Journal of Business

Studies, Vol.2 No.1.

 Jerris, A. L. (1999). Human Resource Management for Hospitality. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 Jewell, Linda (1990). Contemporary industrial/organizational psychology.

St.Paul: West.

86
 Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Individual differences in the nature of the

relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 67, 101–107.

 Kaplan Robert S., Norton David P. (1996), The balanced scoreboard: translating

strategy to action, USA.

 Karami M.J.H. and Mallick S.A., 2005, “Job Satisfaction Level and the Impact of

Education on Working Domin for the Industrial Workers in Milk Vita and

Application of EDA and PRE Oriented Technique” Journal of Business Studies,

Vol XXVI No.2.

 Kovach, K.A. (1987) “What motivates Employees? Workers and Supervisors give

different answers”, Business Horizons, Sept/Oct, Vol. 30, No. 6.

 Lewicki, R. (1981). Organization seduction: Building commitment to

organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 10(2), 5 – 21.

 Locke, E. (1968) ‘Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives’,

Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 31: 157-189

 Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349).

Chicago: Rand McNally.

 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task

performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 Locke, E.A. & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C.L. Cooper &

I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational

psychology (pp.1 – 35). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

87
 Ludeman, K. (1989) The worth ethic. New York, New York: E.P. Dutton.

 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,

370-396.

 McClelland, D. C. (1966). That urge to achieve. Think Magazine, 82-89.

 McCormick and J. Tifflin. 1979. Industrial Psychology; New York: George, Allen

and Unwin.

 McDaniels, C. (1992). Counseling for career development: theories, resources and

practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 Moreno, S. E. (1998). The job satisfaction of nurse practitioners in the National

Health Service corps. (Master's thesis, University of Nevada, 1998). Masters

Abstracts International, 36-05, 1331.

 Mottaz, C. J. (1987) Age and work satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 14(3),

pp.387- 409.

 Mrayyan, M.T. (2005), “Nurse job satisfaction and retention: comparing public to

private hospitals in Jordan”, Journal of Nursing Management, 13: 40-50.

 Mulinge M, Muller CW (1998). Employee Job Satisfaction in Developing

Countries: The Case of Kenya. World Dev., 26(12): 2181-2199.

 Mullins Laurie J. (2007). Management and Organisational behaviour. Eighth

edition. Prentice Hall.

 Nguyen, A. N., Taylor, J., & Bradley, S. (2003). Relative pay and job satisfaction:

some new evidence. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1382 , 01 (43).

88
 Opkara, J. O. (2002). The impact of salary differential on managerial job

satisfaction: a study of the gender gap and its implications for management

education and practice in a developing economy. The Journal of Business in

Developing Nations , 65-92.

 Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus

multiple-item measures? Journal of Managerial Psychology , 388-403.

 Petri, H.L. (1996). Motivation: Theory, research and applications (4th ed.). New

York: Brooks / Cole Publishing Company.

 Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the

relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. The

Academy of Management Review, vol. 9 (4) , 712-721.

 Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The

role of personal interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37,

990- 1001.

 Pinder CC (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior.Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 Porter, L., Lawler, E. (1968) Managerial attitudes and performance, Homewood,

Ill: Irwin Dorsey.

 Porter, L., Lawler, E. (1968) Managerial attitudes and performance, Homewood,

Ill: Irwin Dorsey.

 Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E. & Hackman, J.R. (1975). Behavior in organizations.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

89
 Poulin, J.E. (1994), “Job task and organizational predicators of social worker job

satisfaction change: A panel study”, Administration in Social Work, 18 (1), 21-

39.

 Prabhu, Mahesh and lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues,2003, “Organizational Climate and its

Influence upon Job satisfaction:A study in a Public Sector Organization in India,

“South Asia Journal of Management,Vol.10,Issueno.4,Oct-Dec.pp.13-24

 Price, J.L (2001), “Reflections on the Determinants of Voluntary Turnover”,

International Journal of Manpower, 22 (7): 600-624.

 Purohit K.K. and Belal A.R. 1996 “ Job Satisfaction of Employee Professional

Accountants in Bangladesh: An empirical study” CU Studies. Vol.12 pp121-232.

 Reilly C.R. (1991) Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, pp.

427- 458.

 Rosenthal, N. (1989). More than wages at issue in job quality debate. Monthly

Labor Review, 112 (12), 4-8.

 Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model:

the impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in

rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.

68 (3) , 429-438.

 Saarri L.M. and Judge T. A., 2004 “Employee Attitude and Job Satisfaction”

HRM, Winter, Vol.43. No. 4, pp 395-407.

 Schultz, D. & Schultz, S.E. (1998). Psychology and work today: An introduction

to industrial and organizational psychology (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

90
 Shipton, Helen, West, Michael A., Dawson, Jeremy, Birdi, Kamal and Patterson,

Malcolm (2006), "HRM as a Predictor of Innovation", Human Resource

Management Journal, 16(1): 3-27.

 Smith P.L., Smits S.J., and Hoy F. (1998), “Employee work attitudes: The subtle

influence of gender”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 649-666.

 Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of

satisfaction in work and retirement. Rand McNally & Company: Chicago, IL.

 Spagnoli, Paola, Caetano, Antonio and Santos, Susana Correia (2012),

"Satisfaction with Job Aspects: Do Patterns Change over Time?", Journal of

Business Research, 65(5): 609-16.

 Spector, P.E. (2003). Industrial and organizational psychology – Research and

practice (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A. and Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and subjective

well-being it’s not the money, it’s the motives. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 959-971.

 Srivastava, S. K. and A.P. Sings, (1980), “Industrial Morale as a Function of

Occupetional Level” Indian Journal of Psychology, P. 1, 17, pp. 21-28.

 Starkweather, R. & Steinbacher, C. (1998), Job satisfaction affects the bottom

line. HR Magazine, 43, 110.

 Staw, B. M., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2005). The dispositional approach to job

satisfaction: More than a mirage, but not yet an oasis. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26, 59-78.

91
 Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional

approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70.

 Steers, R. (1987) Motivation and Work Behaviour, London: McGraw Hill.

 Szymanski, E. M. & Parker, R. M. (1995). Rehabilitation counselor work

motivation, job performance and job satisfaction: An exploratory study. Journal of

Rehabilitation Administration, 19, 51-64.

 Terez, T. (2001). A tale of two motivators. Workforce, 80(7), 22-24.

 Thorndike, E.L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York:

Macmillan.

 Topolosky, P. S. (2000) Linking employee satisfaction to business results. New

York: Garland Publications.

 Tyagi, P.K. (1985). Work motivation through the design of salesperson jobs.

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 5(1), 41 – 52.

 Van Niekerk, W.P. (1987). Eietydse bestuur (Contemporary management).

Durban: Butterworth.

 Vroom, V. (1964) Work and Motivation, New York: Wiley

 Wanous J.P. and Lawler E.E. (1972) Measurement and Meaning of Job

Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, pp95-105 Australian Journal of

Business and Management Research Vol.1 No.9 [113-123] | December-2011

 Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical

discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at

work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18.

92
 Wicker, F.W. & Wiehe, J.A. (1999). An experimental study of Maslow’s

deprivation-domination proposition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1356-1358.

 Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees according to over 40 years of

motivation surveys. International Journal of Manpower, Copyright ,MCB UP Ltd.

 William B. Werthe, JR. Keith Daris (2000), Human Resources and Personnel

Management, USA: McGraw-Hill-Inc.

 Wiscombe, J. (2002). Rewards get results. Workforce, 81(4), 42-47.

 Woods, J. O. (1998). The relationship between Covey's principle-centered

empowerment theory and Herzberg's motivator/hygiene theory of job

satisfaction/dissatisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1998).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 56-06A, 1862.

 Woodworth, R.S. (1918). Dynamic psychology. New York: Columbia University

Press.

 Young, J. L., & James, E. H. (2001). Token majority: The work attitudes of male

flight attendants. Sex Roles, 45, 299-319.

 Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. and Gremler, D. D. (2006) Services Marketing,

Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, 4th edition, Mc Graw-Hill

International Edition.

93