Aarhus School of Business Aarhus University

MASTER THESIS

The role of motivation in Human Resource Management: Importance of motivation factors among future business persons

Author: Michal Kirstein Supervisor: Frances Jrgensen

M.Sc. in Strategy, Organisation and Leadership

August 2010

Abstract Motivation seems to be one of the most important tools of Human Resource Management. Organizations design motivation systems to encourage

employees to perform in the most effective way but also to attract potential candidates. The key to create the efficient motivation system is an answer to the question what really motivate employees. The purpose of this paper is to find which motivation factors are seen as the most important by students considered as future business persons. The aim is to analyze findings in the light of existing motivation theories. The knowledge from the theoretical part of this paper combined with the results of the research can be useful for managers who deal with freshly graduated employees and for HR professionals who prepare recruitment campaigns focused on attracting students. The research was based on the questionnaire distributed to the sample of 152 respondents from Aarhus School of Business, and 148 participants from Management and Marketing Department at University of Gdansk (UG) in Poland. Respondents were asked to rank thirteen motivation factors in the order of their importance. The distribution of ranks was similar in both groups. The findings indicated that Interesting work and Good wages were the most important factors for all students. Students from Aarhus School of Business gave the third position to Feeling of being well informed while students from Gdansk University to Job security. Both groups agreed that Promotion and growth in the organization and Full appreciation of work done were also included in the top five factors according their importance The results suggest that future business persons are motivated by factors from many different categories. Therefore, the most efficient approach to their motivation should not be based solely on intrinsic motivators neither on extrinsic motivators. By being aware of the factors that are the most important for future business persons companies can meet the challenge of attracting, motivating and retaining them.
Key words: Motivation factors, Incentives, Job performance, Employee motivation, Rewards

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Problem statement and research question .................................................................. 3 1.2 Structure of the paper ...................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 5 2. Theoretical Background ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1 The concept of Work Motivation .................................................................................... 6 2.2 Motivation Theories ......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Content theories........................................................................................................ 9 2.2.2 Process theories ..................................................................................................... 14 2.3 The effects of motivation on employees performance ........................................... 18 2.4 Monetary motivators versus non-monetary motivators ........................................... 21 2.5 Motivation factors employee choices ..................................................................... 28 2.6 Students motivation ..................................................................................................... 32 3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 34 3.1 Research method ......................................................................................................... 34 3.1.1 Information gathering ............................................................................................. 34 3.1.2 Data collection......................................................................................................... 35 3.1.3 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Choosing factors of investigation ............................................................................... 36 3.3 Sample ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.4 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 41 4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 42 4.1 ASB students ................................................................................................................. 42 4.2 University of Gdansk students .................................................................................... 47 4.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................... 51 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 53 6. Conclusion and future research ......................................................................................... 58 7. Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 60 8. Appendix................................................................................................................................ 64

Figures and tables Figure 1: Maslows hierarchy of needs ............................................................... 9 Figure 2: Herzbergs theory factors affecting job attitudes. ........................... 13 Figure 3: The Equity Theory diagram ............................................................... 16 Figure 4: Hypothetical relationships between amount of motivation and a level of performance ................................................................................................. 18 Figure 5: The Job Characteristic Model............................................................ 24 Figure 6: Management leadership styles and team dispositions ...................... 26 Figure 7: Respondents characteristics ............................................................. 40 Figure 8 : Mean ranks and the order of factors ASB students ....................... 43 Figure 9 : Factors that motivate other people by ASB students........................ 46 Figure 10: Mean ranks and the order of factors UG students ........................ 47 Figure 11: Factors that motivate other people by UG students ........................ 50

Table 1: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by gender (ASB students) ..................................................................................... 44 Table 2: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by possession of a job (ASB students).................................................................. 45 Table 3: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by gender (UG students) ....................................................................................... 48 Table 4: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by possession of a job (UG students) ................................................................... 49 Table 5: Mean Ranks and overall positions in the ranking comparisons. ...... 51

1. Introduction

A great amount of worldwide wealth occurs in a form of human capital. Therefore managing human resources plays a crucial role in a process of increasing companies effectiveness. The one of the most important functions of HRM is motivation. The importance of motivating people at work is noticeable at all levels of organization. Starting from managers who need to be aware of factors that motivate their subordinates to make them perform well, through employees who need to think through what expectations they have of work, ending up with HR professionals who have to understand motivation to effectively design and implement reward structure and systems. It seems to be obvious that companies need motivated employees and without any doubts motivation is an important aspect of HRM. However, because of a complex nature of human behavior, motivation is not easy to understand and to use. Despite many studies on that topic managers today are no closer to understand employees motivation than their counterparts more than a half of century ago (Kovach, 1980). Although, some of research suggested that money is not as potent as it seemed to be, many companies tried to implement monetary incentives as their main tool to motivate employees. Performance related pay became the new mantra that was used unquestionably by plenty of companies (Frey & Osterloch, 2002). Recently, as a result of a financial crisis, many large and small organizations had to cut costs through reduction of employees salaries and bonuses. The question that has arisen is if there are other options of motivating employees that would be equally effective but more costs efficient. The literature on a subject of motivation shows that there are several other ways to motivate employees. The most well know and often cited theories can be divided into two categories: content theories and process theories. The first group is focused on what motivate people. It is represented by authors such as Maslow, McClelland and Herzberg who are known by almost everyone who ever read anything about motivation. The second category process theories, try to find out how motivation occurs. Vroom, Adams, Locke and Latham created the most influential process theories. The points of view presented by authors of those theories in some aspects are complementary but in others are
1

totally opposite. That possibly was the reason for other researchers inspiration to conduct own studies on motivation. It resulted in a number of possible suggestions about motivators that could play a crucial role in increasing employees performance. Some authors (Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Lawyer, 1969) indicate that job design plays important role in shaping employees behavior while others (Roche & MacKinnon, 1970; Allender & Allender, 1998; Lu, 1999; Tharenou, 1993; Mayfield, Mayfield, & Kopf, 1998) suggest that leadership style and freedom given to employees are crucial in motivating employees. Another group of researchers (Luthans & Stajkovic, 2000; Armstrong & Murlis, 2004) try to prove that recognition can be used to motivate people to perform well. In fact, there are many more examples of possible motivators in the literature on a subject of motivation. In this multitude of possible options it is not easy to answer the question what in fact motivates employees. The easiest way to find out is simply to ask them. There is a long history of researches which ask employees to rank the importance of motivating factors. Some researchers spent a great part of their lives studying employees responses. In their studies they compared answers from employees coming from different cultures, age groups, levels of organization and even from different points of time in a history. Their results showed that importance of motivating factors might vary among particular groups of people. However, there are several motivating factors that are very often ranked high positions. Interesting work, Full appreciation of work done, Feeling of being well informed and involved and Good wages are those factors that received high rates in many research (Lindahl, 1949 as cited in Sonawane, 2008; Harpaz, 1990; Kovach, 1980, 1987, 1995; Linder, 1998; Fischer and Yuan 1998; Kinnear and Sutherland, 2000). The majority of studies analyzed the importance of motivating factors among people who already worked. There are not many researches that investigate factors that motivate students who will join workforce in the future. Krau (1989, as cited in Lim, Srivastava & Sin Sng, 2008) found that pre-existing work attitudes developed before entering workforce may serve as basis for individuals attitudes in their future work. Therefore, asking students about

factors that will motivate them at work in the future makes sense and will be the subject of investigation in the empirical part of this paper.

1.1 Problem statement and research question Nowadays, there is a strong competition on the market of employees. Companies start to search and recruit candidates before they finish their education. The aim of this paper is find out which factors will be motivating for students when they start their career. The answer to this question might be interesting for HR professionals who prepare recruitment campaigns for students at universities or campuses. The knowledge gained from this paper might be useful in creating attractive offers for candidates. It can be used in job advertisements or during events at universities such as company dating or company presentations. If companies have knowledge about job factors that students value the most, they will be able to attract more people. It will result in a larger number of applications and better choice of candidates. As was already mentioned, students attitudes towards motivating factors might be predictors of their attitudes at work in future. It means that not only recruiters can take an advantage of results coming from the research presented in this paper but also managers who deal with freshly graduated employees. This study will search for the answer to the question if monetary incentives are as important as they are said to be and if they can be exchanged by other, more cost efficient and equally effective motivators. Managers who know the answer will be able to use the most efficient strategy to motivate their employees and possibly to avoid unnecessary costs. Finally, the research conducted for the aim of this thesis might inspire students who will begin their work careers soon, to think through what their work expectations are. Self-reflection about factors that will be motivating for them at work will positively influence the choice of a company and a position they apply for. The right match between students expectations about motivators and a motivation strategy used by company may result in better performance and satisfaction of students when they will make their first step in the career.

1.2 Structure of the paper The structure of this thesis can be broken down into four general parts. The first part is an introduction. It contains basic information about theoretical foundations of the thesis and the importance of the topic of motivation. It presents research question and explains what the aim of the paper is. Finally, it suggests for whom the results of this study might be useful. The limitations of the study are concerned at the end of the introductory part. The second part is a theoretical background of the thesis. It is based on findings from the literature and previous research on motivation. This part contains authors theoretical analysis in which he synthesize and ex-pound ideas upon the subject area in question. It consists of six subchapters which are organized in a deductive way, from the most general to the most specific one. Firstly, the concept of motivation is presented and clarified. Secondly, the most important content and process theories of motivation are introduced. In the third part existing research on the effects of motivation on employees are analyzed. Forth subchapter contains a comparison of research and theories on monetary and non-monetary motivators. Fifth presents findings from researches on

employees choices of motivating factors. The last part of the theoretical chapter is focused on students and their motivation. The third part of this thesis is based on authors own research. It starts with description of used methodology. The research method and the ways of gathering information, collecting data and preparing the questionnaire are presented. In the next step author justify the choice of thirteen factors used in the questionnaire. At the end of this part choice of the sample and characteristic of respondent are described. The last subchapter contains information about the way data was analyzed. The final part of the paper presents results of the research for both groups of students. They are followed by discussion and summary of findings. The paper is ended by a conclusion which summarizes the thesis. The last part lists the literature used during the process of writing this thesis and is followed by appendix that contain questionnaire.
4

1.3 Limitations Due to the scope of this research there are several limitations that need to be addressed. First, it has to be noted that although there are some evidence in the literature on existing relation between pre-employment attitudes and future behavior of employed people, it should be not taken as granted that the factors chosen as the most motivating by students, will be also so important for them when they start their career. The main question in the survey asked about students expectations of factors that will be motivating for them in their future job. It is possible that an experience in a real work environment will change individuals attitudes towards motivating factors. Second, the present study limited its sample to a group of students from Aarhus School of Business and from Management and Marketing Department at University of Gdansk (UG). This may hinder the generalizability of the results. In other words, results should be generalized only to the population of students from those two particular educational institutions. However, it is possible that students from other business schools in Poland and Denmark would give similar answers. Third, the list of thirteen factors used in the questionnaire was made on the basis of previous researches on that topic. The motivation factors chosen to be ranked seem to cover the most important aspects of motivation. However, a disadvantage of choosing this particular form of questioning is a risk to miss some factors that are important but are not listed. To avoid this bias an openended question was added. The response rate for this question was low. It might mean that the list contained all the most important motivators. On the other hand, it is possible that there are still some other important factors but respondents just did not want to answer the open-ended question. Finally, the questionnaire used in the research was designed in English and then translated to Polish. Although, author is a Polish native speaker some minor changes between questionnaires occurred. To minimize the difference the questionnaire was translated back to English by other person for a comparison and adjustment.

2. Theoretical Background 2.1 The concept of Work Motivation The term motive usually is explained as desires, needs, emotions or impulses that make someone do something Following this definition, motivation is the state of being incited to action. When we take into consideration work environment it becomes clear that work motivation refers to motivation within a work setting. Typically, it refers to employees motivation to perform, stay and commit in a company, cooperate, lead or support a leader, help customers and so forth. Obviously, this definition from International Encyclopedia of Organizational Studies (ed. Bailey & Clegg, 2008) is just an example from a mass of work motivation definitions which can be found in almost every paper about this topic. Some authors define what motivation is by explaining where it comes from. In this approach work motivation has been defined as a psychological process resulting from the reciprocal interaction between the individual and the environment that affects a persons choices, effort, and persistence (Latham & Ernst, 2006). In other definitions work motivation is associated with the goal attainment. People are motivated to do something if they believe it is likely that it will bring desired result. People who are well motivated take action that they expect will achieve their clearly defined goals (Armstrong, 2007). Kanfer (1990, as cited in Bjorklund, 2001) stressed that motivation is a phenomenon which cannot be directly observed. The only way to infer motivational processes is to analyze streams of behavior caused by environmental or inherited factors which can be observed through their effects on abilities, beliefs, knowledge and personality. There are probably as many definitions of motivation as researchers working on this topic. However, there are some features of motivation that are common for most definitions. It can be observed from the examples presented above that when authors describe motivation they mention an action or behavior that is directed and sustained as a result of motivation. In other words motivation is usually described as an invisible force that pushes people to behave in a certain way. For the purpose of this thesis definition by Pinder (1998) will be used as it seems to define motivation both in a comprehensive and explicit way. Pinder
6

used work of Jones (1995), Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981), Steers and Porter (1979), and Vroom (1964) to formulate following definition (1998, p.11) : Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as beyond an individuals being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration. Pinder (1998) believes that presented definition has some features that make it better than others. Firstly, it is not general as many other definitions, it presents motivation in a close relation to work and careers. His definition is intended to apply behavior such as joining or leaving company, being punctual, respecting or not supervisors orders, inventing better ways to performing a job and accepting relocation to another place. According to Pinder one of the key elements that are important in defining motivation is a concept of force. It not only makes the definition consistent with other authors work but also allows motivation level to be weak or strong depending on circumstances. The idea of force suggests that motivation is related to an effort. Pinder believes that effort is a consequence and indicator of motivation rather than the same phenomena. He points out that his definition does not present hedonism as a primary force in work motivation. However, it does not exclude it either. There are three more important elements of Pinders work motivation definition: intensity, direction and duration. Author describes the intensity dimension using two terms created by Brehm and Self (1989) potential motivation and potential arousal. The first of those two terms is created by expectations that performance of behavior will affect final outcome. The second term is dependent on magnitude of potential motivation and occurs only to the extent that particular behavior is difficult. In Pinders opinion intensity is not affected by the potential available and is defined as the transient size of motivational arousal in a particular point of time. The direction can be understood by considering towards which goals the energy of motivation is directed. Finally, the duration suggests that goal achieving might be a possible outcome of on job behavior. As the last but also very important feature of the definition Pinder mentions the fact that motivation is presented as a hypothetical construct which cannot be measured or seen directly but is treated as an existing psychological process.

2.2 Motivation Theories The subject of motivation has been present in the literature from the early beginning of 20th Century. Although, many theories have been developed and a plenty of research has been conducted, factors that motivates people to perform well at work are still a controversial topic. Many researchers as a starting point for their work in the field of motivation used the most known theories and models of motivation. Armstrong (2007) in his book about employee reward management summarized those theories in a clear and useful way. According to him, Taylors theory of motivation to work is related to rewards and penalties which are directly connected to performance. Maslows concept of hierarchy of needs is less instrumental approach. It defines motivation as a result of peoples unsatisfied needs. Herzberg focused on a distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Those old theories are definitely important, however they are not perfect. Analysis showed that they are characterized by some significant weaknesses. Armstrong presents modern, process theories which approach motivation from different perspective. As an example, Vrooms expectancy theory explains that motivation exists only when relationship between performance and outcome is clear and usable. Goal theory emphasizes the role of a feedback and setting goals in relation to motivation and performance. Finally, Equity theory says that people are more motivated if they are treated equally. In the previous part of this paper a number of motivation definitions have been presented. Each of existing definitions has some strengths and weaknesses. Exactly the same can be said about motivational theories. As one can observe from the short overview presented above there are many different theoretical approaches to the topic of motivation. Motivation for a group of authors is strictly related to human needs, while point of view of other authors is much more focused on cognitive processes that influence peoples behavior. In the literature of the subject those differences between theories resulted in a division in two categories: content and process theories. In the next part of this paper the most important theories from each category will be presented and analyzed.

2.2.1 Content theories The content theories s are characterized by emphasis on what motivates moti people. They concern with individual goals and needs which are said to be the same for every person. Although, , they assume that all people posses a similar set se of needs, they differ in defining what those needs are. The most well known and very often cited author of motivational theory is Maslow with his hierarchy of human needs (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). 2005) In Maslows point of view human hu behavior is driven by the existence of unsatisfied needs. His hierarchy starts from psychological needs and lead through security needs, social needs, selfself esteem needs and self-actualization actualization needs need on the top position (see see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Maslows hierarchy of needs

Selfactualization needs

High High-order needs

Self-esteem needs Social needs Deficiency needs Security needs

Physiological needs

According to Maslow, , higher needs are not felt until lower needs are not fulfilled. Additionally, , when the need is satisfied it does not influence influence human behavior anymore and as a result the focus is moved into into a need which is higher in the

hierarchy. Maslow divided needs into two categories: deficiency needs and high-order needs. Deficiency needs include basic needs such as hunger or thirst and a need for shelter and protection. When these needs are satisfied people become motivated by high order needs such as the need for supportive and satisfactory relationships with others, needs for freedom, independence, recognition and achievement and finally the need to develop ones potential. The self actualization which is the highest step in Maslows pyramid can be described as the ending point of gradual psychological maturation process. This final level is achieved by few people and unlike other needs is never fully satisfied (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). Maslows work on the theory of needs has been followed by other authors who took an attempt to improve it. One of modifications was presented in 1973 by Alderfer, who developed and tested model with fewer needs levels (Pinder, 1998). His study, unlike Maslows, was based on empirical research in organizational settings. The theory suggests three general categories of human needs which are partly based on Maslows model but are not the same. Alderfers model is named ERG and consists of existence needs, relatedness needs and growth needs. The first group is closely related to Maslows physiological needs and partly to security needs (only physical security). Existence needs are concrete in nature and are usually limited. A good example of them in organization setting is a salary. If money has to be divided between two groups - the more money receives one group, the less gets the other group. Relatedness needs basically consist of the interpersonal security needs, the need for prestige and esteem from others. Satisfying relatedness needs requires development of relations and interactions with other people. The last group of needs in Alderfers theory contains growth needs. Although, growth needs are corresponding to Maslows self esteem and self actualization needs there are some major differences in a point of view of those two authors. Maslow suggested that self-actualization consist of a fulfillment of unique, innate potential, whereas Alderfers growth needs contain desire to interact with environment by investigating, exploring and mastering it. In Alderfers model growth needs change if ones environment changes (Pinder, 1998).

10

The next important contributor to the field of content theories is McClelland whose model became a starting point for many other authors research. McClellands theory focuses on three motives that are relevant in an organizational context (Miner, 2006). Maslow differentiated between any certain transitions among the needs, whereas McClelland indicates that some people have higher needs than others. Moreover, needs in McClellands point of view change over a life as they are shaped by peoples experience. That is why in some sources his theory is called acquired needs theory. McClelland (1990) suggested that most of acquired needs can be classified to one of three groups: achievement needs, power needs or affiliation needs. In his opinion some people have a strong need for achievement others for power and finally there is a group that desire affiliation. High achievers tend to perform better for the intrinsic satisfaction for doing something better or just to show that they are more capable of doing something. They prefer to work with tasks which are moderately challenging and they actually perform better with those kinds of tasks. In one of their papers McClellands and Burnham (1976) deliberate on what makes people good managers. They suggest that high achievement is an important factor that leads to the personal success but it does not necessarily make someone a good manager. High achievers work on their own success by doing everything personally and by receiving feedback that is crucial for them. Managers are not able to do everything by themselves so they have to put some responsibility on others. As well as that, the feedback that they receive comes with a delay, so they are not able to find out immediately how well they performed. Regarding those facts McClellands and Burnham stated opinion that the factor that has a great influence on being a successful manager is something else than a need for achievement. They suggested that it is the need for power that is characterized by a desire to influence people. McClelland (1990) found that people who desire to have some serious influence on other have some special traits. The high need for power usually comes with features such as competitiveness, assertiveness and aggressiveness which result in a negative self-image. The socially acceptable way to fulfill the need for power is the search for prestige by collecting symbols of power. People characterized by a high need for power tend to act in a way that makes them recognized in a group. Finally, they are more willing to take a risk. The last group of needs
11

described by McClellands model is the group of needs for affiliation. The term affiliation was described by Atkinson, Hens, & Verify (1954), as the concern over establishing, maintaining, or restoring a positive, affective relationship with another person or persons (as cited in McClelland, 1990, p.347). People with a strong need for affiliation perform better in tasks which are related to affiliative incentives. In other words, they prefer if their work require maintaining contacts with other people. High affiliated individuals avoid conflict and prefer to solve problems by cooperative and confirmative behavior. The reason for that is the fear for rejection. McClellands findings suggested that the need for affiliation is not a factor that supports management. Managers high in affiliation try to spend more time with employees and make good relations with them, but it is not a crucial part of being a manager, who sometimes has to make hard decisions (McClelland, 1990). The last content theory that will be presented in this chapter is Herzbergs twofactor theory. The theory brought a lot of interest from academics and from managers who were looking for ways of motivating their employees. The reason for so much interest in Herzbergs results comes from a dual character of his work. His theory not only describes employees needs but also goes further and presents how to enrich jobs and make workforce more motivated (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). Herzberg indicates that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposite phenomena (Herzberg, 1968). According to him the opposite of satisfaction is rather no satisfaction and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. Herzberg suggests that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are produced by different factors. People are satisfied at their work by factors related to content of that work. Those factors are called intrinsic motivators and contain achievement, recognition, interesting work, responsibility, advancement and growth. Factors that make people unhappy with their work are called dissatisfiers or hygiene factors. Herzberg found following dissatisfiers: company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relationships, salary, status, security. What makes them different from motivators is the fact that they are not related to the content of the work but to the context of the job (Herzberg, 1974). Figure 2 presents a frequency of each factor in Herzbergs research and their division into hygiene factors and intrinsic motivators.
12

Figure 2: Herzbergs theory factors affecting job attitudes

Source: Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review. Jan2003, Vol. 81 Issue 1, p90.

In Herzbergs research the most frequently chosen factors which led to satisfaction were achievement and recognition, while the most frequently chosen factors which led to dissatisfaction were company policy and administration and good relations with supervisor. Each of presented here content theories has some strengths and weaknesses. It might have happened that authors of those theories focused strongly on a one side of the problem but they missed other important side. Motivation of employees is really important topic, so every research in this subject is observed and evaluated by other researchers. As a result some researchers agree with and support original theories and others disagree and criticize them. In other words, the most well known theories in motivation bring some serious
13

controversies. As an example, Maslow theory became popular despite a little evidence for its validity. As well as that, very often it seems to be presented in an oversimplified way (Pinder, 1998). Moreover, Maslows originally did not intend to create a theory that will be used to explain organizational behavior. Finally, his hierarchy does not appear in some circumstances, so it cannot be generalized to the whole population (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). The validity was taken in consideration in evaluation of Alderfers theory. Also McClellands theory was followed by many others researchers who tried to check if author was right (Rauch & Freese, 2000; Aditya, House & Kerr, 2000; Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003; Vecchio, 2003; as cited in Miner, 2005). In fact their results were not always completely supportive for McClellands model. Herzbergs two-factor theory was criticized for biases caused by selection of just two occupational groups. Another reason for skepticism is the fact that people tend to explain their success by internal factors and their failure by external reasons. That could influence their choices of intrinsic motivators in relation to satisfaction and of external, organizational factors in relation to dissatisfaction (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). Herzberg results were also attacked because he did not try to measure relationship between performance and satisfaction (Armstrong, 2007). As can be seen from this short overview of controversies and overlaps on content theories not every theory managed to defend itself during decades. However most of them influenced the growth of interest in the topic of work motivation. In the next part of this paper more recently developed theories will be described and analyzed.

2.2.2 Process theories Process theories are characterized by a dynamic character, not static as content theories. The main concern is not what motivates people but how motivation occurs. Process theories try to explain how and why peoples behavior is directed to certain choices. The focus of all process theories is put on the role of individuals cognitive processes in determining his or her level of motivation (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005, p.202). The process theory which seems to be the core one is the Expectancy Theory. This model was originally
14

presented by Vroom (1968), however many other later researchers tried to adapt and develop it. Vroms Expectancy theory compromises three factors: valence, instrumentality and expectancy. Vroom describes valence in a relation to peoples affecting preferences toward particular outcomes. The valence of outcome is positive if a person prefers attaining it instead of not attaining. Oppositely, the negative valence of outcomes characterize situation when a person prefers not attaining it instead of attaining. The third possibility is zero valence of outcome, which means that a person is indifferent between attaining outcome or not. The instrumentality is a belief that one action lead to another. Finally, the expectancy is defined as a belief about likelihood that a particular behavior will be followed by a particular outcome (Vroom, 1964). Values of those three factors can be used to calculate the motivational force of the job,. Summarizing, Vrooms theory suggests that a job is motivating for employees when they can see a relation between performance and outcome, if they have abilities to do the job and if they see outcome as satisfying their needs. Vrooms theory can be a suggestion for managers to focus on main aspects of their subordinates perceptions. As well as that, it is helpful in explaining occupational choices and in predicting tasks that people will work most and least hard at (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). Another group of process theories - equity theories, are related to the distribution of resources. There are three main aspects that are common for all equity theories. Firstly, they suggest that employee perceive a fair return for his contribution at work. Secondly, they imply that employees compare the return they received to the return received by other for the same job. Finally, they assume that employees who are in inequitable position comparing to others will try to do something to reduce the difference (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978). The most influential and often cited in the literature of motivation is the Equity Theory, which was put forward in 1963 by Adams. The theory distinguishes between employees inputs and outputs. Inputs are understood as the number and value of contributions that person make to his or her work. Outputs are described as the nature and quantity of received rewards for doing the job (Pinder, 1998). Examples of inputs and outputs are presented in Figure 3.

15

Figure 3: The Equity Theory diagram

EQUITY LIBRA

time experience abilities

seniority training education

pay status fringe benefits

satisfaction perks advancement

INPUTS

OUTPUTS

According to Adams theory different employees stress different inputs and outcomes as the most important for them. However, all people evaluate their outcomes in a relation to their inputs and judge a fairness of this relation. What is suggested by the theory is the fact that people not only evaluate the equity by comparing the amount of their inputs and outputs but additionally they make social comparisons with other people. They feel that they are not treated fairly if other people receive better outputs for the same job. As was stated before, employees who encounter inequity try to do something to reduce it. The equity theory presents the most common consequences of perceived inequity. The first and the most common behavior is changing employees own effort to increase or reduce performance. If it is not possible to solve the problem of unfairness by changing effort then employee try to cognitively reevaluate outcomes and inputs. That means for example reconsideration of own credentials or effort in a comparison to credentials or effort of a person who was chosen as a referent. The inequity may lead to some dysfunctional reactions such as stealing from employer. Finally, employee may simply decide to withdraw from a company (Pinder, 1998).

16

Any chapter related to the process theories of motivation would not be complete without mentioning results of Locke and Lathams work. Those authors introduced the goal setting motivation technique which, according to them, is not only more effective than other methods, but also can be treated as a support for them (Locke & Latham, 1979). In their approach a goal is defined as an object or aim of an action that is attained in a specific limit of time. The one of their core findings is that the highest level of performance and effort are produced when the difficulty level of attaining goals is also very high. The only limit here is an ability of a person who tries to attain a goal. Authors found that people perform better if a specific difficult goal is set than if they are asked to perform as well as they can (Locke & Latham, 2002). What was surprising in Locke and Latham (1990) results was that performance does not differ regardless goals are assigned to people or if people participate in choosing their own goals. Authors explain it by the fact that usually superior that assigns the goal is treated like an authority. Moreover, the act of assigning a goal means that superior believes that subordinate has ability to fulfill that goal. In a result people became motivated to prove their competences. Finally, the assigned goals are helpful with defining peoples standards used to attain their selfsatisfaction from performance (Bandura, 1988, as cited in Locke & Latham, 1990). If there is an influence of setting goals on peoples performance there must be some mechanism that explains it. In fact, Locke and Latham (2002) basing on their own research and other researchers results (LaPorte & Nath, 1976; Wood & Locke, 1990), distinguished even four of them. First, goals direct effort and attention toward all activities that are related to achieving them. Difficult goals lead to more effort than easy goals, so it can be said that goals in general have energizing function. Moreover, they prolong effort, so they affect persistence. The forth mechanism is an indirect action caused by goals that lead to the discovery, arousal or to use of task-relevant strategies and knowledge. The influence of goals on performance can be stronger in some circumstances. The one of them is a situation where an employee is committed to his goal, which occurs when the attainment of a goal is important for him and he believes that he is able to achieve it. Another important factor that was mentioned by authors is a feedback that helps people to adjust a level of effort needed to attain the goal (Locke & Latham, 2002).
17

2.3 The effects of motivation on employees performance The authors of theories presented in previous parts of this paper tried to explain what motivate people to work. The answer to this question is important because it is obviously good to understand what influence people behavior. However, it is not the only reason for a great interest in the topic of motivation. Managers might look for ways to motivate employees because they assume that motivation can lead to some positive outcomes for a company. The question that can be stated is if motivation really has influence on peoples performance at work. Researches show that indeed there is a relation between motivation and performance (Deci & Gagne, 2005). However, motivation and performance cannot be treated as equivalent phenomena. The distinction between them was noted by Vroom (1964). He suggested that effective accomplishment of a task is not only related to motivation but also to other factor. The picture that emerged from his studies suggested that even if people are motivated they cannot perform well if they do not posses abilities to fulfill the task. In Vrooms point of view motivation and abilities are equally important. In his opinion more is to be gained by increasing ability from people who are highly motivated to accomplish the task than from those who are not motivated. Vroom used indication from existing data and described relationship between motivation and performance as an inverted U function (Figure 4). Figure 4: Hypothetical relationships between amount of motivation and a level of performance

Level of performance

Amount of motivation for performance

18

In other words performance is not constantly increasing when level motivation is rising. Vroom (1964) cited an early study of Yerkes and Dodson (1908) which showed that that highest level of motivation does not lead to the highest performance, especially when the task is difficult. In fact, extremely high levels of motivation lead to lower performance than moderate levels. This relation is explained in two ways. First assumes that high levels of motivation narrow the cognitive field. Second suggests that highly motivated people are afraid of failure and that results in a lower performance. Other authors mentioned several factors that might limit employees performance such as restricted practices of their superiors, limits of company policies and physical work environment lightening, temperature, noise or availability of materials (Hall, 1994; Baron, 1994, as cited in Pinder, 1998) Limitations of peoples performance are an important subject. However, it seems that there are more studies that search for the answer to the question what can positively influence performance of employees. Companies often use incentives to motivate their employees. Meta-analysis on the effects of incentives on workplace performance conducted by Condly, Clark and Stolovitch (2008), shows some interesting findings. The authors found that average effect of all incentive programs in all work settings lead to 22% gain in performance. It means that incentives can significantly increase performance but, as authors claim, they have to be carefully implemented. Results of this study indicated that some settings are better than others to increase performance. For example, if we take into consideration incentive programs it comes up that they lead to better performance of employees if a mechanism of the program includes competition between employees to earn a bonus. Another important feature of incentives programs is their length. Long programs increase performance more significantly that short programs. One of the greatest differences between levels of performance in authors analysis was between incentives offered to teams and individuals. Team directed incentives have much stronger effect on performance than individual directed incentives. Finally, incentives have less significant impact if they are used to get people do something than to get people do the job in a smarter way or to be more persistent at job that people already started. The last important finding of the
19

study was a relation between a type of incentives and performance. Studies indicated that monetary incentives resulted in a higher performance than nonmonetary incentives (Condly, Clark, & Stolovitch, 2008). Frey and Osterloch (2002) in their book about successful management by motivation stressed an important fact that can explain relation between performance and motivation. They suggested that different people have different goals in their life. Therefore, particular motivators influence performance of individuals differently. There are employees who are motivated extrinsically. Authors divided them into two types: Income maximizers and Status seekers. Income maximizers are only interested in earning money for consumption goods and they find work an unpleasant duty. Status seekers search for social comparisons. Work for them is a tool to gain positional goods that shows their high status. Employees can be also motivated intrinsically. There are three groups of them characterized by specific features. Loyalists identify personally with the goals of company they work for. Formalists are focused on procedures and rules existing in a company, while Autonomists pursuit for own ideology. Defining those types of employees helps to predict which kind of motivators are effective in increasing individuals performance. As an example, performance-related pay increases performance of Income maximizers, especially when it is paid out as money rather than fringe benefits. The condition that has to be met is that employees see clear relationship between compensation and performance. Status seekers can also be motivated by wages as long as they let them distinguish themselves from other people. In their case compensation does not have to be in a form of money. They would rather prefer other benefits that directly show their status. Performance-related pay can also reduce performance. Loyalist may understand this kind of rewarding as a signal that their work is considered by company as inadequate. Formalists also may feel that company tries to change the way they work. Finally, Autonomists would lose their intrinsic motivation because their selffulfilling work concept is put on doubt. Not-financial rewards also need to be matched with employees types. For example praise would be desired by Status seekers but would be not motivating at all for Income maximizers who cannot buy anything for it. Autonomist may feel that management try to absorb them
20

into the organization and Formalists may not appreciate praise as they just do their job. Another way to increase performance is implementing commands and sanctions. This way would be effective for Formalists who understand them as a guide. On the other hand, it can dramatically reduce performance of other types of employees. Income maximizers, Status seekers, Loyalist and Autonomist see commands as restrictions, what result in crowding-out their intrinsic motivation to work. Participation can be helpful tool that positively affect performance of Autonomist but it would be treated as waste of time by Income maximizers and Status Seekers as they are not interested in the work itself. Finally, autonomy understood as possibility to make own decision is crucial for Loyalist and would definitely increase their performance. For other types of employees autonomy would not be an effective way of increasing their efforts. The characteristics of employees types presented here suggest that people have different expectations and desires at work. Some rewards can be really rewarding for them but others are rather seen as factors that negatively influence their performance (Frey & Osterloch, 2002). The question that occurs in this point is if monetary ways of motivating people are better that non-monetary ways. If they are not, what the best ways to motivate employees not-financially are. Those problems are broadly discussed by many researchers and professionals and seem to bring many opposite opinions. That is why they will be presented separately in the next part of this paper.

2.4 Monetary motivators versus non-monetary motivators The overview of content and process theories brings some important findings. Definitely a motivation influence on employees performance exists. Motivation can be described as intrinsic and extrinsic. Some factors are more motivating then others. Researchers put much effort to find out which of them are the best motivators. The most common factors that are taken into consideration comes from two categories: monetary and non-monetary incentives. As Armstrong (2007) wrote, money is a motivator because it satisfies a lot of needs. It is a factor which is indispensable for life and which is needed to satisfy basic needs
21

of survival and security. Higher needs such as self-esteem can also be satisfied by it. Money let people buy things that show their status and create a visible sign of appreciation. In other words, money is a symbol of many intangible goals what makes it a powerful motivating factor. Some credible studies

confirm that in fact money is a good motivator, while others, equally credible neglect that. Rynes, Gerhart and Minette (2004) in their study on the importance of pay in employee motivation found that money is not a motivator for every person and not in every circumstance. However, it is an important factor for most people. Authors suggest that money is much more important in peoples actual choices than in their responses to the question about importance of money as a motivator. That might lead to an underestimation of monetary rewards as one of motivating factors in job settings. A comparison of researches where respondents were asked to rank factors that motivate them with researches on actual behavior shows that people list money on a fifth position among other motivating factors while in actual behavior money is almost always the most effective motivator. One of explanation for that is that respondents tend to give the answer which is socially desirable. If they are asked what motivates other people, the most common answer is money. Similarly, if respondents role is to evaluate attractiveness of holistic job alternative, they most often choose jobs which are characterized by higher level of salaries. The results indicate that people if asked indirectly about importance of money as a motivator rank it much higher than if the question is stated directly. Similar results about the importance of money as a motivator come from Agarwals (2010) study based on a literature review on motivation and executive compensation. In his opinion money is still the most crucial motivating factor for employee that makes him perform well in the company. He agrees that intrinsic rewards motivate executives but after a certain point of career money seems to have greater importance. Agarwal goes further in his conclusions as he indicates that long-term incentives are less effective than short-term, performance based incentives. This is the result of associated risk and uncertainty about the future which comes with long-term incentives. Summarizing, those examples show the importance of money as a motivator. Some of them indicate circumstances in which money can be underestimated,

22

while others try to define conditions in which money plays the most important role. As was stated at the beginning of this chapter money seems to be controversial topic related to motivating employees. There are many supporters of financial incentives but on the other hand, there is a large group of researchers who neglect the fact that money is a good motivator. Some of them are very critic about it. For example, McClelland (1968, p23) writes that money isnt nearly so potent a motivating force as theory and common sense suggest it should be. As an example he cites other authors research that showed no influence of money on peoples motivation in boring and fatiguing jobs but indicated other factors that had influence such as freedom to schedule their work by employees. The results that support McClelland words come from McKinsey Quarterly recent survey conducted in June 2009 (Dewhurst, Guthridge, & Mohr, 2009). Responses received from 1,047 executives, managers, and employees around the world showed that three noncash motivators (praise from immediate managers, leadership attention, a chance to lead projects or task forces) are more effective motivators than the three highest-rated financial incentives (cash bonuses, increased base pay, and stock or stock options). The study on health workers motivation which was not related to business environment also showed that non-financial motivators play important role in employees motivation (Mathauer & Imhoff, 2006). Presented examples support hypothesis that money is not as good motivator as it is said to be. This might result in asking which motivators have stronger influence on employees behavior than money. The one of non-financial motivators that plays important role in shaping employees behavior is job design. In 1975 Oldham and Hackman introduced The Job Characteristic Model (Figure 5). Essential point of this model is that the presence of certain attributes of jobs increases the probability that individuals will find the work meaningful, will experience responsibility for work outcomes, and will have trustworthy knowledge of the results of their work (Oldham & Hackman, 2010).

23

Figure 5: The Job Characteristic Model

Job Characteristics

Critical Psychological States

Personal & Work Outcomes

Skill Variety Task Identify Task Signifcance Autonomy

Experienced Meaningfulness of the Work

High Internal Motivation High Quality Work Performance

Experienced Responsibility for Outcomes of the Work

High Satisfaction with the Work Low Absenteeism and Turnover

Feedback

Knowledge of the Actual Results of the Work Activities

High Growth Satisfaction High Work Effectiveness

Growth Need Strenght Knowledge and Skill Context Satisfaction

Source: based on Figure 1 in: Rungtusanatham, M., & Anderson, J. (1996). A clarification on conceptual and methodological issues related to the Job Characteristics Model. Journal of Operations Management; , Nov96, Vol. 14 Issue 4,p358.

Authors of the Job Characteristic Model as a core of their theory presented three psychological states (Experienced Meaningfulness of the Work, Experienced Responsibility for Outcomes of the Work, Knowledge of the Actual Results of the Work Activities) and related them to job characteristics and personal and work outcomes. In their opinion if employees experience the work to be meaningful, feel personally responsible for outcomes and have knowledge of the results of their work it results in their motivation to perform well (Oldham & Hackman, 2010). Oldham & Hackman based their work on Vrooms expectancy theory. The same approach was chosen by other authors who worked on motivating aspects of job design and the similar results were observed. Lawyer (1969) in his paper about job design and employees
24

motivation tried to answer the question why changes in job design should be expected to affect motivation of employees. According to Vrooms theory there are two variables that determine motivation: effort reward probability and reward value or valence. Changes in job design may influence individuals motivation if they change the value of outcomes which are dependent on effort or if they positively affect employees beliefs about the probability of results in relation to the level of needed effort. The one of important determinants of job design is its content. Lawler presented three characteristics of job that may lead to employees assumption that their good performance will bring intrinsic rewards. First, employees must receive meaningful feedback that let them evaluate their performance. Second, job must require using abilities that employee value - that will result in the feeling of accomplishment and growth. And third, employees must have control on setting their goals - that will bring the feeling of selfcontrol. Lawler going further into the topic propose job design changes that lead to work enlargement. One of them is the number and variety of task that employee do (vertical enlargement). The other one is a degree to which employee controls planning and execution of his job (horizontal enlargement). In Lawlers opinion the best effect can be achieved if both ways of changing job design are used simultaneously. The additional finding was that job enlargement lead to increased product quality more than to increased productivity (Lawler, 1969). To summarize, it can be said that well designed job is meaningful for employees. It improves workers morale and positively influences their productivity what results in a better overall performance of a company. The job can be made meaningful by involving employee in a problem solving by letting him plan, organize and control the job that he does. The level of responsibility and freedom given to employee is closely related to the leadership style that characterizes his superior. Roche and MacKinnon (1970) developed a program for managers that helps motivate their employees. The crucial goal of this program is to make work meaningful. Theoretical base for the meaningful work program was the Motivation-maintenance theory, which says that employees are motivated by challenging tasks that lead to growth, advancement, recognition and achievement, and well known Theory X & Y by
25

McGregor that distinguished two managerial styles. The first one is characterized by bureaucracy and authoritarism while the other one by a democratic approach to employees that gives them a chance for being creative and responsible. Authors of the meaningful-work program suggested that leaders should not act in a traditional way by setting goal, defining standards and controlling results. Instead of that they should participate with employees in solving their problems, setting their goals and enable them to check their performance. This approach to motivating by appropriate leadership style was confirmed in a practice. The research results showed significant increase in morale and production level (Roche & MacKinnon, 1970). As some authors suggest (Allender & Allender, 1998) leadership style of managers should be matched with a proper style of teams. The combinations of two variables (a concern with task and a concern with relationships) were used to group leaders. Two other variables (level of motivation and level of skills) were used to group teams. Authors proposed the best matches of particular leadership styles and team dispositions (Figure 6 matched by color):

Figure 6: Management leadership styles and team dispositions

LEADER Low Task/ High Relationship MOTIVATOR Low Task / Low Relationship DELEGATOR High Task/ High Relationship DIRECTOR High Task / Low Relationship COACHER Low Motivation / High Skills SLACKERS Low Motivation / High Skills INCOMPETENTS TEAM High Motivation / High Skills ACHIEVERS High Motivation / Low Skills DILIGENTS

Source: Based on Figure 1 and 2 in: Allender, H., & Allender, J. (1998). Identifying the right management job for you. Industrial Management , Mar/Apr98, Vol. 40 Issue 2, p30

Authors reported that the successful combination of leadership styles with team styles leads to higher productivity. The reason for that may lie in the fact that leaders behavior influence employees well-being (Lu, 1999). A poor fit between motivations of employees and a level of leaders support might result in a decrement in employees well-being. Moreover, research showed that wrong supervisory style may lead to undesired behaviors of employees such as absenteeism (Tharenou, 1993). The way managers behave is not the only
26

important factor. Also the way he communicates with employees seems to play an important role. Miles, Steven and Waley (1996) proved that communication between superiors and subordinates is a strong predictor of employees job satisfaction. Also a language used by leaders can influence their subordinates motivation to work. The Motivational Language Theory developed by Sullivan (1988) has been tested and results showed a significant relation between a language used by leader and employees performance and job satisfaction (Mayfield, Mayfield, & Kopf, 1998). The theory indicates that performance and job satisfaction increase if leaders clarify task, goals and rewards to employees. As well as that, managers should share their affect with employees for example by compliments for a well done job. Finally, they should explain the organizations cultural environment to employees. There is no evidence in the literature that leaders language abilities are innate. That gives the possibility to provide training for leaders that help them influence employees behavior by motivational language (Mayfield, Mayfield, & Kopf, 1998). To summarize, as can be seen from the examples of research on influence of leadership style on motivation, the way managers act and treat subordinates can significantly increase their performance. Another often used tool to motivate employees is recognition. Indeed, it can be a powerful reinforcer that affects peoples performance. Employee not only wants to know how well he performed but also desires the feeling that his effort is appreciated. Recognition is a reward for employees performance that is defined as acknowledgement, approval and genuine appreciation (not phony praise) (Luthans & Stajkovic, 2000, p1). There are several ways in which recognition can occur. It can be a verbal or written praise, formal or informal, administrated on public or privetely. Reaserch shows that recognition indeed has a positive influence on employees motivation. A motivational function of recogntion can be explained by the Reinforcement Theory and the Social Cognitive theory (Luthans & Stajkovic, 2000). Those theories suggest to relate recognition to the real achievements and reward them immediately after accomplishment (Armstrong & Murlis, 2004). The Maritz Pool Survey (www.maritz.com) conducted in 2005 on 1002 employees showed that managers do not meet employees needs regarding recognition. The most often
27

used form of recognition is a verbal praise. Results show that just 50% of employees want to receive it and 40% would rather prefer written praise. Personality might be an important factor that creates people preferences about the form of recognition. Some people may be proud to be honored in a front of wide public, whereas the others might be simply embarrassed. The main and the most important finding of this study is that a great part of employees agrees that recognition motivate them and affect their performance. Summarizing, recognition can be a powerful tool used to motivate employees. It is desired by employees and significantly increases their performance. Some authors (Luthans & Stajkovic, 1999) suggest that social reinforcers such as recognition may affect employees performance at the same level as pay. The approaches presented in this subchapter show that there is no clear answer to the question which kind of motivators are the best to increase peoples performance. There is a strong support for the economic man approach which priorities money as a motivating factor. On the other hand there is a group of researchers who completely disagree with that model saying that money does not significantly affect peoples motivation. Finally, there is a number of researchers who do not focus on money at all. Instead of that they put their interest and effort to analyze other motivators. Their findings show the importance of leadership style and language used by leaders in increasing subordinates performance. They suggest that job design is a crucial in motivating employees. Also recognition is considered by some of them as a powerful motivator. The question that may come out after reading the overview of those complimentary or sometimes opposite models is what employees themselves think that motivates them the most. The answer to this question will be searched in the next subchapter.

2.5 Motivation factors employee choices Employee motivation can be investigated in many different ways. The one of approaches to research on employee motivation is looking for factors that are most often chosen by employees when they are asked to decide what motivates them at work. The most common method to collect data in this kind of studies is
28

a survey. It usually consists of a number of motivating factors that are supposed to be ranked or assessed. There is a long history of research on motivating factors. Sonawane (2008) in her paper about rewards mentioned the most important studies on this topic. As she suggests one of the first survey about motivating factors was conducted by Lindhal in 1949. The result of those studies indicated full appreciation of work done, feeling of being in on things and interesting work as the most important motivators for employees. Another mentioned author who through questionnaires distinguished the most important factors was Herzberg (1968). He suggested that the order for crucial factors is following: Security, Interesting work, Opportunity for advancement,

Appreciation, Company and management, Intrinsic aspects of the job. Another example comes from Kellers (1965) research. In his research ranking was opened by Job satisfaction on the first position and was followed by Pride in organization, Relation with fellow workers, Relation with superiors, Treatment by management, Opportunity to use ideas, Opportunity to offer suggestions at work and Appreciation of ones effort. Sonawane (2008) cited Jurgensen (1978) as his studies showed interesting differences between subgroups of respondents. The study was conducted on a sample of fifty-seven thousands job applicants. It showed significant difference between male and female choices regarding motivating factors. Males indicated Security, Advancement, Opportunity and Type of work while females chose Type of work, Company and Security as the most important factors. Another cited study was conducted by Sharma (1989) in 51 organizations in India. Author found that Safety, Security and Monetary benefits were recognized as the most important by Indian workers. As was suggested in a previous chapter of this paper leadership style plays important role in motivating employees. This suggestion is confirmed by results of the survey that asked people to rank factors taken into consideration when they decide whether take the job or not. Respondents choices included Open communication, Effects on personal/family life, Nature of work, Management quality (Nelson, 2001, as cited in Sonawane, 2008). Job design factors such as Advancement opportunities, Flexible work schedules and Opportunities to learn new skills were chosen in a survey by Watson Wyatt in 2006 (as cited in Sonawane, 2008). Kinnear and Sutherland (2000) focused on knowledge workers and factors that motivated that occupational group. They
29

found that Financial reward and recognition was the motivator ranked at first place. Knowledge workers were also strongly motivated by Freedom to act independently, Developmental opportunities and Access to new technologies. A comparison of this study with other studies leads to the conclusion that specific occupational groups may be motivated by other factors than other groups. The difference between groups of respondents was also noticed by Kovach (1980, 1987, 1995). His studies seem to cover many important areas from previous research on motivational factors mentioned in this short overview. Moreover, he was followed by other researchers who replicated or modified his researches to find out more about the topic. All these features make Kovachs work interesting and therefore will be a subject of more detailed analysis. Kovach has been doing research and practically work on employees motivation for over 20 years. He conducted survey in 25 organizations and had responses from 1000 participants. Respondents were asked to rank factors on the list that contained: 1. Interesting work, 2. Full appreciation of work done, 3. Feeling of being in on things, 4.Job security, 5. Good wages, 6.Promotion and growth in the organization, 7.Good working conditions, 8. Personal loyalty to employees 9. Tactful discipline, 10.Sympatetic help with personal problems. Presented order of factors is the actual order that came out from Kovachs (1980,1995) results. The three most important factors in respondents opinion were Interesting job, Full appreciation of work done and Feeling of being on things. Kovach compared those findings with findings from similar surveys from 1946 and 1980. The comparison showed the difference between answers from 1946 and both later surveys. Workers in the middle of the century on the first position placed full appreciation of work done. Interesting work was placed on the sixth position and sympathetic help with personal problems was on the third position much higher than in later studies. Those differences could be caused by economic growth and changes in standard of living. The difference between employees choices in the different points of time is interesting but it was not the main finding of Kovachs studies. The crucial part of Kovachs research was comparison of responses given by employees and supervisors who were asked to rank factors that motivate their subordinates. It became clear that supervisors have very inaccurate perceptions about their employees needs. The most
30

important factors for employees according to managers were: 1.Good wages, 2.Job security, 3.Promotion and growth in the organization. Supervisors answers where the same in different points of time. Kovach (1987, 1995) suggests possible reasons for such significant differences. Employees might give more socially desired answers, but on the other hand they may be simply better witnesses of own motivation that their supervisors. Supervisors may choose factors that they are not directly responsible for, such as wages. Finally, managers might be motivated by other factors than employees. Possibly, by taking themselves as a reference point they rank factors in a different way than people on lower positions. Another step that Kovach (1995) took was comparing subgroups. He indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between males and females. However, it could be noticed in the ranking that women chose Full appreciation of work done on the first position while man chose Interesting work. The comparison between different age groups showed that employees who were under 30s were characterized by similar answers as supervisors. Differences were also observed between groups with lowest income and lowest position in the organization and groups with high income and position. Kovachs studies were replicated by other authors. Linders research (1998) indicated Interesting work and Good wages as the most important motivators for university workers. Results from a survey conducted by Harpaz (1990) on a representative sample of employees in seven countries showed the same two factors as the most important motivators. Fischer and Yuans research (1998) also compared employees from various countries. They indicated that Chinese employees ranked Good wages, Good working conditions and Personal loyalty of boss as the most important factors. Their findings showed that Chinese managers, oppositely to US managers, were able to provide appropriate answers to the question what motivate their employees. To summarize, there are several factors such as Good wages, Interesting work, Job security and Promotion and growth that were ranked highly in a majority of studies. However, presented results suggest that employees choices may differ according to respondents culture, occupation, gender, position in the organization and salary. This means that organizations which want to focus on

31

motivating particular group of employees need to be aware of the fact that some factors that motivated one group could not work well with other group. 2.6 Students motivation The studies presented above do not distinguish between the levels of experience employees possess. They are not concern if employees have been already working for many years or just entered the market. The aim of this paper is to find out what factors are considered as motivating at work by students, who will join the workforce soon after their graduation. The literature review shows that there is a group of authors who decided to focus on young people who have not started working yet. The question that is often asked is how far students pre-existing attitudes to motivating factors are predictors of their future work motivation. Krau (1989, as cited in Lim, Srivastava & Sin Sng, 2008) found that work attitudes developed before entering workforce may serve as basis for individuals attitudes in their future work. Another support for this approach comes from Ajzens (1991) theory of planned behavior. It says that intentions to perform behaviors can be predicted from attitudes toward those behaviors. Also anthropological studies (Leibow, 1967, as cited in McCall & Lawler, 1976) show that work attitudes are developed before entering the workforce. It seems that researches focused on students are relevant for all companies that hire graduates. Therefore, several authors used students as a group of their main interest. For example, Lim, Srivastava and Si Sng (2008) analyzed survey data from college students in Singapore to find relation between money motives and motivation to work. They divide money motives into three categories. Positive money motives reflect obtaining money as a measure of achievement and success as well as a way to cover life necessities. Freedom of action motives imply that people earn money to spend it in a way they (shopping, leisure time, charity etc.). Negative motives leads to obtaining money to have a superior position in social comparisons. The findings show existence of relation between those motives and motivation to work. They suggest that people who want to earn money to provide life security for their families and to measure their work achievements are more likely to work hard in organizations. People who are high on other motives might be distracted by their reasons to work (spending money on things, comparisons) and in result
32

they work less hard because working itself is not gratifying for them. McCall and Lawler (1976) investigated work reward expectations and generalized work attitudes of high school students. Authors found a relation between preemployment work attitudes and demographic variables such as race, sex, social class and parental reward values. They suggested that pre-employment work attitudes, together with other factors such as a characteristic of work situation and a reality of a labor market, influence future job choices and job attitudes. The effects of culture and gender on work goals among business students in Canada and China were analyzed by Bu and McKeen (2001). Significant differences were found between those two groups. Chinese students showed weaker concern for a balanced life and stronger interest in intrinsic rewards, simplicity/routine and moral congruence. Their attention to extrinsic rewards and organizational influence were equal comparing to Canadian students attention. Another comparison of students from different countries has been made by Sagan, Tomkiewicz, Adeyemi-Bello and Frankel (2008) who focused on students from Poland and Russia. They found that students from Poland had a greater preference for intrinsic factors while Russian students had greater preference for extrinsic factors. Russians were much more interested in possessing high position in a company than Poles. Good wages were also more important for Russians. Students from Poland were more interested in work that requires creativeness, variety of duties, intellectual stimulation, developing own methods of work and duties concerning problems of central importance to the company. The overview of research on motivating factors presented in this paper shows some differences between findings. There are factors that constantly were chosen as the most important by the majority of employees. On the other hand, there are authors who indicate particular groups of employees that were motivated by other factors. Finally, there are researches that focused exclusively on students and their job attitudes as predictors of their future work motivation. The empirical part of this paper will be based on research inspired by studies presented in this chapter. The particular group that will be taken into investigation is a group of students from Denmark and Poland who will join the workforce after their graduation.
33

3. Methodology 3.1 Research method The goal of this paper is to find out which factors motivate future business persons. The chosen research approach has a form of theoretical analysis with a subsequent empirical illustration, which has been carried out on the basis of a survey conducted among ASB and UG students. The method of investigation that has been chosen is a deductive approach. The investigation starts from the most important, general motivation theories and is narrowed down to the specific subject - factors that motivate employees. Basing on other researches that investigated motivating factors, own research has been designed. Its purpose is to test if motivating factors indicated by researchers as the most important play also a crucial role for other, not investigated yet group of people. The decision to apply a quantitative research comes from the fact that the list of motivating factors could be developed from theories and other researchers studies. If there was no research on that topic a qualitative approach would be more appropriate way to gather data. As initial understanding of an issue has been already developed quantitative interviewing is chosen. The numerical character of data gives opportunity to point the most important motivating factors. As well as that, it allows generalizing results and characterizing a particular group of people. Moreover, it provides possibility to compare results with previous findings and to see if there is a consensus on that particular issue.

3.1.1 Information gathering The first part of the paper is based on findings from the literature and previous research on motivation. It consist of authors theoretical analysis in which he synthesize and ex-pound ideas upon the subject area in question. ASB librarys data base contains a considerable amount of books on the topic of motivation and was a basic source of information. Library provides access to Business Source Complete Database which was used as the main tool to search for
34

relevant articles on the subject. The keywords used to search were: employee motivation, incentives, rewards, job performance, job satisfaction and work attitudes.

3.1.2 Data collection The second part of the paper is based on a survey administrated to students at ASB and Management and Marketing Department at University of Gdansk (UG) in Poland. The aim of the survey is to find out which factors students as future employees find motivating at work. The tool that has been chosen to collect data is self administrated questionnaire. This type of collecting data does not require interviewer. Respondents are asked to fill the questionnaire and they read instruction on their own. The questionnaires were distributed in two different ways. In the first option, questions were sent by an e-mail with a link to an online survey on the internet. In the second option, they were distributed by hand in this case students had to answer the questionnaires in a class. There are two reasons that justify the decision to use those two methods. The advantage of an internet based survey is its low costs and the ability to cover a large group of students. Response rates may often be low when doing a survey by email which is a consequence from the lower level of control in this type of data collection. The period for data collection is long and respondents might be not motivated to fill out the survey when they receive an email or may simply forget about it. As a result a response bias may occur if some of subgroups are more likely to cooperate than others. In order to reach high response rate questionnaires were also handed in the class. Students were asked to complete them right away. There were several factors controlled to avoid biases. Author used exactly the same word formation to convince students to participate in an internet based and in a paper based questionnaire. To avoid double responses the group of students that participated in a paper based survey did not receive emails with invitation to internet based survey. Answers from both groups of responses were compared to check if there are no significant differences between them. Combination of those two approaches allowed getting a lot of responses from various groups of students in a short time and at low cost.
35

3.1.3 Questionnaire Questionnaire (Appendix) consists of three questions related to motivating factors, three demographical questions and question about having study related job. Respondents are informed about confidentiality and anonymous character of the survey. They are encouraged to take a part in a survey in by information that participation does not consume much of their time. In the first question respondents are asked to rank thirteen motivational factors in order which each of them will motivate them at work or is motivating if they already have a study related job: 1=most important.13=least important. Second question consist of the same list of factors but in this case respondents are asked to choose three the most important factors for other people. Third question is open-ended question with a space for additional factors that might motivate respondents and are not included in the list. Demographic section contains questions about respondents gender, age, nationality. The last question asks if respondents have study related job. The internet based questionnaire has exactly the same form as the paper based questionnaire. There is the same order of questions and the same graphic design. The questionnaire that was distributed among students in Management and Marketing Department at University of Gdansk was translated into Polish.

3.2 Choosing factors of investigation The decision to investigate particular factors comes from a literature review and previous research on that topic. The thirteen factors that have been chosen are: Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from superiors Good wages Good working conditions (such as light, temperature, cleanliness, low noise level) Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from your superiors
36

Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between your job requirements and your abilities and experience Participation in goal setting

Nine of presented factors come from Kovachs (1987) and his followers (Harpaz, 1990; Linder, 1998; Fisher&Juan, 1998) researches. Except those nine factors Kovach included also one more factor sympathetic help with personal problems. This factor has been excluded from this research. The reason for that is its low importance among all groups of respondents that have been investigated in Kovachs research. It might have been caused by a common trend that makes employees keep their personal problems out of work. Author assumed that students would also give this factor low position in the ranking therefore it has not been included. Instead of that four other factors have been added to the research. The reason for that is a notion that Kovach could miss some important factors that have been mentioned in other models. The factors that have been added were used previously by other researches and they are: open communication (Nelson, 2001, as cited in Sonawane, 2008), freedom to plan and execute work independently (Kinnear & Sutherland, 2000), a good match between job requirements and abilities and experience (Harpaz, 1990) and participation in goal setting (Reif, 1975). The main reason for using those particular thirteen factors is the fact that they cover the main motivation theories and models. Employing each of the thirteen factors can be justified by theories presented in the first part of this paper. If we analyze chosen factors in the light of Maslows hierarchy of needs interesting work might be understand as self-actualizing need, good wages as physiological factor, full appreciation of work done as an esteem need, job security as safety factor. Particular factors can be explained also by other theories. For example, full appreciation of work done can be supported by Adams equity theory. Worker might feel de-motivation if
37

there will be inequity in appreciation given to another employee for the same quality of work done. Vrooms theory can be used to explain why interesting work might be motivating for employees. For example, if management offers employees of university more opportunities to explore and design their area of interest for better performance, they will be motivated to put more effort as they expect desirable outcome in a form of interesting job (Lindner, 1998). Motivational influence of job design presented in Oldham and Hackmans Job Characteristic Model (1975) could be an explanation source for factors such as freedom to plan and execute work independently or feeling of being well informed and involved. Leadership style theories can be related to participation in goal setting, tactful discipline and personal loyalty from superiors and open communication. Further analysis of the most important factors and their relations to motivational theories will be presented in a discussion section of this paper. As can be seen from examples above, there is a strong theoretical support for a decision to apply those particular factors. The other advantage of applying factors that already have been investigated is opportunity to compare results with previous researches. That might for example show that particular group of people is motivated by other factors then another groups. Obviously there is a possibility that authors of mentioned research missed some factors which are important for employees or that some new factors have became important since their studies. Therefore, open ended question about other motivating factors that are not listed has been added to the questionnaire. Analysis of answers for this question could be a good indicator of factors that motivate this particular group of people but it can also be a base for other research in a future. The question about factors that motivate other people comes from an assumption that people judge themselves in other way than they judge others. Kovach (1987), Harpaz (1990) and other authors found that managers, when asked to rank factors that motivate employees, chose totally different factors then employees themselves. In researchers opinion one of possible explanations is that managers are motivated by other factors then employees,

38

and they use themselves as a reference point. On the other hand managers might simply think that employees are motivated by not socially desirable factors such as money. Finally, it is possible that employees tend to show themselves in a better light and that is why they give more socially desirable answers. Regarding all those differences and possible solutions it seems to be interesting to find out how students judge themselves and judge other people. If there is a difference in those judgments then explanation could be searched in attribution theories or other psychological theories. The comparison of answers from questions about own motivators and others motivators might help in answering to a general question how students perceive own motivation. On the other hand it could bring another dilemma which factors are in fact the most important motivators. The decision to use demographic questions in the questionnaire is also based on Kovachs research. He found differences between gender and age groups. Other researchers who followed his work found some differences between answers of employees coming from different cultures. That was the reason to ask respondents about nationality. Finally, the question about having a study related job has been included as author of this paper assumed that students who already have a job might give different answers than those who based only on their expectations about their future job.

3.3 Sample The most basic sampling decision that has to be made is who or what the population of interest is (Czaja & Blair, 2005). In this particular research two groups of students are taken into consideration. The first group consists of students from Aarhus School of Business, while the second group consists of students from Management and Marketing Department at University of Gdansk in Poland. There were no restrictions about the level of education, the program of studies or the age of participants. The questionnaires were distributed randomly among students to ensure wide range of participants backgrounds and lines of studies.

39

Figure 7: Respondents characteristics Group 1 ASB students N= 152 Mean age = 24 Gender Group 2 Management and Marketing Department students N= 148 Mean age = 23

55,30%

44,70%

Male Female

43,14% 56,86%

Male Female

Have a job

33,50% 66,50%

Yes 64,71% No

35,29%

Yes No

. Two questionnaires were The sample of ASB students consisted of 154 people. rejected as the answers were not complete, so the final number of responses were 152 (N=152). The average age of the participants nts was 24. There were 44,7% of males and 55,3 % of females. As for nationalities, more than a half of respondents were Danish. ASB is well known for its international character so the rest of respondents came from many other countries such as Bulgaria Poland, and, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Mexico, USA, Australia, Canada, China, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Russia and Finland. The number of students student who had a study related job was 51 which is 33,5% of total to sample size. The sample of Management and Marketing Department students from University of Gdansk contained 148 people (N=148). ). The average age of participants was 23 There were 43,1% of males and 57,9% of females.
40

Management and Marketing department do not have many international studies, so the nationality of all respondents was Polish. The amount of students who had a study related job was 35,2% of total sample size.

3.4 Data analysis The on-line questionnaire was created on questionpro.com. This web site gives opportunity to collect responses and create basic reports. Another useful feature of questionpro.com is a possibility to download raw data in Excel and SPSS format. Therefore, those two programs were used to conduct further analysis. The group of ASB students and Management and Marketing Department students were analyzed separately and were compared at the end. The first step was to calculate mean ranks of the factors by all students from ASB and all students from Management and Marketing Department. The factor with lowest mean rank was given position number one and factors that followed it were given further positions. That allowed creating a ranking of most important factors. Another step was to find the percentage of respondents who gave particular factors particular positions. Next step was to check whether factors highly ranked in question 5 are the same as those reported as the most important for other people in question 7. Finally, segmentation of data was done to separately analyze answers from different subgroups such as gender groups, age groups and a group of people who have or not a study related job. The last step was to analyze answers from the open-ended question about factors that are not listed in the previous question. At the end responses from ASB students and Management and Marketing Department at UG were compared. To analyze the differences between responses from different subgroups several statistical tests were used. Nonparametric U Mann-Whitney test was used to assess whether difference between subgroups in distribution of mean ranks of motivation factors was statistically important. Additionally, to check if there is an agreement between subgroups Spearmans rho correlation test was used.

41

4. Results The results will be discussed in three sections. First, general results and comparisons within ASB students will be presented to explore whether there are differences among different groups by gender, age or having a job. Factors that motivate students will be compared with factors that in students opinion motivate other people. Finally, students suggestions about other, not listed motivating factors will be presented. In the second section, the same will be done with results from Management and Marketing students. Third section will contain comparisons of results from those two groups of respondents.

4.1 ASB students Figure 8 presents the mean ranks given to each motivation factor by ASB students. The most important factor chosen by students was Interesting work. It leads not only in the ranking based on mean ranks but also in the percentage of respondents who ranked it in the position number one. Interesting work was placed on the first position by 55% of ASB students. Another 20% of respondents placed it on the second or the third position. Good wages were the second in importance by mean ranks. This factor was ranked in one of the first three positions by 74% students. The third the most important factor by mean ranks was Feeling of being well informed and involved. The three the most important factors (1) Interesting work, (2) Good wages and (3) Feeling of being well informed and involved, were followed by other factors in a following order: (4) Full appreciation of work done, (5) Promotion and growth in the organization, (6) Freedom to plan and execute work independently, (7) Job security, (8) Open communication, (9) A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience, (10) Good working conditions, (11) Participation in goal setting, (12) Personal loyalty to employees from superiors, (13) Tactful discipline from superiors. As can be seen from this ranking two the least important factors were related to supervisor and his behavior. Tactful discipline from superior was ranked in the last place by 22% of students and more than 50% placed it on one of the last three positions. Similar situation occurred with

42

Personal loyalty to employees from superiors which was ranked on place 12 in mean ranks and was placed on the last three positions by 30% of respondents. Figure 8 :Mean ranks and the order of factors ASB students

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6,99 (7) 8,34 (12) 3,11 (1)

Motivating factors
8,16 (10) 7,06 (8) 6,49 (4) 6,34 (3) 7,49 (9) 8,32 (11)

9,76 (13) 6,58 (5)

6,88 (6)

5,49 (2)

The results of the analysis of motivation factors according to the gender are presented in Table 1. The results suggest that there is no reason to say that there is a statistically significant difference between the underlying distributions of the means ranks of males and the mean ranks of females (U=83,5, p=,959). The Spearmans rho correlation test used to check what is the relation between overall ranks given by males of females indicated strong agreement between those groups (rho=,857, p<0,01). However, when we look into the overall ranks given by males and females we can see some differences in the order of factors. Promotion and growth in the organization seemed to be very important for males (3rd position) and less important for females (6th position). On the third position women placed Feeling of being well informed and involved while
43

men ranked it fifth. Open communication and a Good match between job requirements and abilities were also ranked slightly higher by females than by males. Participation in goal setting and Freedom to plan and execute work independently was ranked higher by males. Table 1: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by gender (ASB students)
Factors Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from superiors Good wages Good working conditions Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from superiors Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience Participation in goal setting Male 6,94 3,50 8,34 5,54 8,47 6,16 9,21 6,28 7,26 6,49 6,74 8,16 7,91 (7) (1) (11) (2) (12) (3) (13) (4) (8) (5) (6) (10) (9) Female 7,04 2,79 8,33 5,44 7,92 6,92 10,20 6,67 6,89 6,21 7,0 6,94 8,65 (9) (1) (11) (2) (10) (6) (13) (4) (5) (3) (8) (7) (12)

The same statistical tests were used to compare groups of students who had a job and those who did not have a job. Similarly to comparison of gender groups, U Mann-Whitney test shows that the current evidence is not strong enough to say that possession of job lead to different outcomes (U=83, p=,939). Two sets of overall ranks given by compared groups are similar to each other (rho=,962, p<0,01). The comparison of mean ranks and overall positions of particular factors are presented in Table 2. Although, the differences between two groups are minor it can be seen that students who had a job ranked Full appreciation of work done higher.

44

Table 2: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by possession of a job (ASB students)
Factors Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from superiors Good wages Good working conditions Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from superiors Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience Participation in goal setting Have a job 6,82 2,75 8,69 5,61 8,31 6,71 10,37 6,22 6,80 6,35 6,90 6,92 8,55 (6) (1) (12) (2) (10) (5) (13) (3) (7) (4) (8) (9) (11) Do not have a job 7,08 3,29 8,16 5,43 8,09 6,51 9,45 6,63 7,19 6,33 6,87 7,77 8,21 (7) (1) (11) (2) (10) (4) (13) (5) (8) (3) (6) (9) (12)

The last question in the questionnaire asked about factors that motivate other people. As can be seen in Figure 9 students from ASB most often chose Good wages (74%), Interesting work (61%) and Job security (45%). Also Promotion and growth in the organization and Full appreciation of work done were frequently chosen by them (31% and 22%). It is worth to notice that ASB students chose differently the most important factors when they were asked to rank the factors that motivate themselves than when they indicated factors that motivate other people. In their opinion three the most important factors that motivate other people are Good wages, Interesting Work and Job security while the most important factors that motivate them are Interesting work, Good wages and Feeling of being well informed and involved. Surprisingly, that last factor was seen as one of three the most important motivators for other people just by 11% respondents. Job security which was seen as factor that highly motivates other people was ranked sixth place in a ranking of students own motivators. Another interesting finding is that Good wages which in students personal motivators ranking were placed on a second position, in the last question was the most often chosen factor.

45

Figure 9 :Factors that motivate other people by ASB students

Motivating factors - other people

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5% 13% 1% 45% 31% 22% 13% 11% 11% 11% 3% 61% 74%

One of the questions in the survey asked participants to state other important motivators if they were not listed in a previous question. There were not many answers for this question. However, examples examples of stated motivators will be presented as they might be useful in future researches. research . indicated by students were: were Friendly atmosphere in a workplace Retirement benefits, bonuses Colleagues Fit of company values and personal values Flexible job Fringe benefits (company car, laptop, gym) International environment / possibility to travel The motivators

All presented motivators were stated in a similar form by two or more students. students
46

4.2 University of Gdansk students The most important factor for students from Marketing and Management Department at Gdansk University is Good wages. This factor was ranked first by 33% of students. Another 42% placed it on the second or the third position. Good wages were followed by Interesting work on the second place and Job security on the third place. Interesting work was ranked one of the first three positions by 60% of students. Almost 20% of them placed it on the first position. Job security was seen as one of the three most important factors by 52% of students, 16% of them ranked it as first in importance. Figure 10: Mean ranks and the order of factors UG students

Motivating factors
12 8,92 (12) 10,19 (13) 8,48 (11) 6,9 (6) 4,64 (3) 5,35 (4) 3,36 (1) 7,96 (8) 8,22 (9) 6,73 (5) 8,38 (10) 7,74 (7)

10

4,14 (2)

As can be seen in Figure 10 three the most important factors (1) Good wages, (2) Interesting work and (3) Job security were followed by other factors in
47

presented order: (4) Promotion and growth in the organization, (5) Full appreciation of work done, (6) Personal loyalty to employees from superiors, (7) Freedom to plan and execute work independently, (8) Tactful discipline from superiors, (9) Open communication, (10) Feeling of being well informed and involved, (11) Good working conditions, (12) A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience, (13) Participation in goal setting.

The least important factor Participation in goal setting was ranked last by 33% of respondents. Another 30% of respondents placed it on eleventh or twelfth positions. Table 3: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by gender (UG students)
Factors Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from superiors Good wages Good working conditions Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from superiors Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience Participation in goal setting Male 4,95 4,25 6,93 3,20 7,68 5,45 7,64 6,64 8,14 8,36 7,89 9,61 10,07 (3) (2) (6) (1) (8) (4) (7) (5) (10) (11) (9) (12) (13) Female 4,40 4,05 6,88 3,48 8,95 5,28 8,21 6,79 8,28 8,42 7,62 8,40 10,28 (3) (2) (6) (1) (11) (4) (13) (5) (8) (10) (7) (9) (12)

Table 3 presents comparison of mean ranks and overall positions of the factors between males and females from Management and Marketing Department. Those two subgroups were also similar to each other. The same as in ASBs sample U Mann-Whitney test did not confirm significant difference between them (U=80, p=,817). Spearmans rho test results showed a strong agreement between genders in the way they ranked motivation factors (rho=,824, p=0,01). When one looks into the overall ranks given to particular factors it can be seen that the order of the first six motivation factors is exactly the same in both
48

groups. There are some differences in the order on further positions in the rankings. Good working conditions and tactful discipline from superiors seem to be more important for man than for women. A good match between job requirements and abilities is more valued by women. Table 4: Mean ranks and overall positions in the ranking of motivation factors by possession of a job (UG students)
Factors Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from superiors Good wages Good working conditions Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from superiors Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience Participation in goal setting Have a job 5,11 4,61 7,53 4,31 8,61 4,75 8,08 6,47 7,94 7,72 7,58 8,89 9,39 (4) (2) (6) (1) (11) (3) (10) (5) (9) (8) (7) (12) (13) Do not have a job 4,38 3,88 6,56 2,85 8,41 5,68 7,89 6,86 8,36 8,74 7,82 8,94 10,62 (3) (2) (5) (1) (10) (4) (8) (6) (9) (11) (7) (12) (13)

The same as in the ASB students case responses of UG students were compared according to possession of job (Table 4). No significant differences were found between distributions of ranks by people who worked and those who did not work (U= 82, p=,898). Spearmans rho test also showed strong agreement between those two groups (rho=,951, p<0,01). In the question about factors that motivate other people Polish students chose Good wages (96%), Job security (68%) and Interesting work (49%) as the factors that are the most important. What is important is the fact that those factors were also ranked three the highest places in the ranking of factors that motivate students. The only difference is their order. Job security was placed in the position number three in students own motivators ranking and Interesting work was in the second place, while in the last question Job security was
49

chosen more frequently quently than Interesting work. It is worth to notice that Promotion and growth in the organization was the forth the most often chosen factor in the last question (30%) and it took the same position in the ranking of motivating factors from the question about students own motivators. The distribution of students answers is presented in Figure 11. Figure 11: Factors that motivate other people by UG students

Motivating factors - other people

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5% 10% 12% 6% 5% 5% 8% 6% 30% 49% 68% 96%

1%

Not many polish h students answered to the open-ended ended question about factors that are not listed in previous question but are important for them. The responses included: Good atmosphere/ good relations with co-workers co Low stress level Prestige
50

Fit of company values and personal values Fringe benefits

Each of these motivators was stated by one or more respondents.

4.3 Comparison The last step of analyzing results is a comparison of the importance of factors that motivate students from ASB and from University of Gdansk. The mean ranks and overall positions of motivation factors are compared in Table 5. Additionally, Table 5 presents overall rankings from Kovachs research. Table 5: Mean Ranks and overall positions in the ranking comparison
Factors ASB students UG students Kovachs sample Kovachs sample under 30 (2) (4) (5) (1) (8) (3) (9) (5) x (6) x x

Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from superiors Good wages Good working conditions Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from superiors Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience Participation in goal setting

6,99 3,11 8,34 5,49 8,16 6,58 9,76 6,49 7,06 6,34 6,88 7,49

(7) (1) (12) (2) (10) (5) (13) (4) (8) (3) (6) (9)

4,64 4,14 6,90 3,36 8,48 5,35 7,96 6,73 8,22 8,38 7,74 8,92

(3) (2) (6) (1) (11) (4) (8) (5) (9) (10) (7) (12)

(4) (1) (2) (5) (8) (6) (9) (2) x (3) x x

8,32

(11)

10,19

(13)

Mean ranks from ASB and UG students were compared to find if there are significant differences between them. U Mann-Whitney test did not show any
51

reason to say there is a statistically significant difference between distribution of ranks by two compared groups (U=77, p=,701). Spearmans rho test showed positive correlation between answers of ASB and UG students (rho=,599, p<0,05). However, when we one looks at the ranking of factors it can be noticed that some factors were ranked higher by one of the groups. Interesting work was the factor that was given the first place by ASB students. UG students placed it on the second position and they ranked first Good wages which were ranked second by students from ASB. Comparing it with Kovachs findings, one can see that Interesting work was also in the first position in the ranking. Although, Good wages were not so important in findings based on the whole Kovachs sample, they were given the first place among respondents under 30. Students from Poland valued Job security which was placed on third position by them. ASB students did not find it so important and ranked it seventh. Another difference can be noticed between ranks of Feeling of being well informed and involved. This factor was one of the most important for ASB students (the third place) and one of the least important for UG students (the tenth place). The two factors that were related to the behavior of superiors Personal loyalty to employees from superiors and Tactful discipline from superiors were more important from students from UG (twelfth vs sixth, thirteenth vs sixth). The comparison of the answers to the question about factors that motivate other people showed that students from both groups chose the same three factors. The most often chosen factor was Good wages. It was followed by Job security and Interesting work. Job security was the second most often chosen factor in UG students group and Interesting work the third. The order was conversed in ASB group. The open-ended question analysis showed that students from both groups mentioned good relations with colleagues, fit of own values with company values and fringe benefits as motivating for them.

52

5. Discussion According to the results presented in a previous part of this paper Interesting work and Good wages are two the most important motivation factors for students from ASB as well as for students from Management and Marketing Department at University of Gdansk. The same factors were found the most important in Harpaz (1990) and Linders (1999) researches. Kovach (1995) in his study also indicated Interesting work as the most important factor. Good wages were not so important for his respondents when he analyzed the whole group but it was the most important factor for the group under 30 years old. Interesting work seems to be the factor that is indicated as one of the most important in many researches in various settings and environments. Good wages are seen as very important by some groups of respondents and not by others. It can be assumed that there is something special about the groups that find monetary rewards a crucial motivation factor. Before we try to find out what characterize students that makes them value good wages, we will look at other factors that were highly ranked by them. The third the most important factor chosen by ASB students was Feeling of being well informed and involved. This factor was not very important for Polish students. They gave the third position to Job security, which conversely was not valued so much by ASB students. The difference might be caused by some cultural issues or a current situation in both countries. The results of research by Fisher and Yuan (1998) that focused on differences between factors that motivated employees from different countries showed that cultural differences have an influence on chosen motivation factors. However, those authors compared Chinese and American employees which are characterized by strong differences in their cultures. The difference between Polish and Danish culture is not so strong. Therefore, explanation for not exactly the same order of motivation factors might be the situation in the country. In Poland students who graduate from business schools have problems with finding jobs. It is quite easy to find an unpaid traineeship but when it is completed companies usually do not offer a proper job to the trainees. That causes the feeling of insecurity and might be the reason why Polish students ranked highly job security.

53

What is also congruent to Kovachs findings (1995)

from the sample of

respondents under 30 years old is that respondents, both from ASB and UG, agreed that Promotion and growth in the organization and Full appreciation of work done were included in the top five factors according to their importance. In other words, it can be said that recognition seems to be an important aspect of motivation. Although, both groups of students wanted superiors to appreciate and reward their effort only UG students thought also about relations with them. It is worth to notice a difference between the way students ranked factors related to superiors behavior: Tactful discipline from superiors and Personal loyalty to employees from superiors. None of the groups placed them in the top positions. However, UG students ranked them higher than students from ASB. It might be also caused by cultural differences. Polish culture is rather formal and hierarchical therefore relations with superiors are important aspect of work. The most important factors chosen by students can be analyzed in the light of Maslows theory of needs. Interesting work is related to self-actualizing need, Good wages to physiological need, Job security to safety need, Feeling of being well informed and involved to social need and finally Promotion and growth in the organization and Full appreciation of work done to self-esteem need. According to Maslow the higher needs occur when the lower needs are fulfilled. This might explain why good wages are one of the most important factors for students. Money is needed to satisfy all basic needs related to everyday expenses. Before students start their work career, they are usually supported by parents or the government. When they enter the workforce they want to be independent and the first step to do this is to pay their bills on their own. It is possible that after a couple of years of work the wages become less important for them. McClelland (1968) suggested that needs change over life as they are shaped by peoples experience. The empirical evidence for this comes from Kovachs (1995) study where the importance of wages was lower in groups of older employees and employees higher in the hierarchy. In the present study there were no significant difference between students who had a job and those who did not. The possible explanation for that might be that time of students service as employees was too short to change their expectations about work.

54

Kovach (1995) not only indicated the difference between age groups but also between genders. In the research presented in this paper this difference also occurred. Similarly to Kovachs findings it was not statistically significant. However, because a similar group of factors was more important for women than for men in both studies the difference is worth to mention. Kovach suggested that perhaps female employees are more interested in interpersonal relations and communication than male employees. That has been confirmed in the study of students. The factor that was not included in Kovachs research Open communication, was in fact more important for female students than for male students. The explanation for womens interest in those particular factors might be related to their orientation to work as a life role (Harpaz, 1990). The questionnaire designed for the purpose of the research contained questions that were not included in researches that were used as an inspiration for own research. The question about the factors that motivate other people was used to see if students give the same answers as in the question about themselves. As results showed students from Poland chose exactly the same top three factors in both questions. Students from ASB answered differently. As three the most important factors that motivate other people they indicated Good wages, Interesting Work and Job security while the most important factors that motivate them were Interesting work, Good wages and Feeling of being well informed and involved. Possible reason for that difference might be the fact that some people tend to describe themselves in a socially desired way. In some environments being motivated mostly by money can seen as not appropriate. On the other hand, need to be well informed and involved is usually a sign of strong commitment at work. This difference between ASB students opinions about their own motivation and motivation of other people is definitely interesting and should be investigated in future researches. Also findings from the open-ended question might be used in the future. Factors mentioned by students such as Good relations with co-workers, Fringe benefits and Fit of company and personal values could be added to the list of motivation factors in the questionnaire to check how important they are comparing to other factors. The questionnaire that was given to students contained some additional motivation factors that were not included in Kovach research (1980,1987,1995).
55

Although, none of them were ranked as one of the top factors according to importance, they are still worth to mention. Freedom to plan and execute work independently seems to be quite important for students from both groups. UG students ranked it sixth and ASB students ranked it seventh. Also Open communication was seen as moderately important factor (eighth and ninth place). A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience and Participation in goal setting were not very important for both groups of students. ASB students ranked those factors slightly higher (ninth and eleventh place) than UG students (twelfth and thirteenth place). The decision to add new factors to the questionnaire was justified by theories of motivation. Research on the particular group of respondents showed that students value motivation factors related to their independence and to the way they communicate at work. Less important for them is participation in operational decisions and match between their skills and job requirements. The reason for low importance of those two factors might be related to students flexibility and can-do attitude. The research presented in this paper brings several implications for managers and HR professionals. However, the results might be interpreted in many ways according to different motivation theories. It has been found which motivation factors are the most important for students from ASB and UG. The question that can be asked is if all of those factors will lead to increased motivation and better performance of future employees. Many authors of theories tried to find the right order of fulfilling employees needs. According to Herzberg (1968, 1974) work factors can be divided into two groups: satisfiers and dissatisfiers. The most important factors chosen by students come from both categories. Interesting work, Promotion and growth in the organization and Feeling of being well informed and involved would be categorized as satisfiers. Good wages and Job security as dissatisfiers. Those last factors according to Herzbergs two factor theory may lead to dissatisfaction of employees but not necessarily to their stronger motivation. Therefore, they should be fulfilled before other factors. Different approach should be taken according to Adams theory. Managers or HR professionals responsible for motivating employees should firstly focus on those factors that may lead to the feeling of inequity. In other words, from the most important factors chosen by students Good wages, Promotion and growth
56

and Full appreciation of work done should be satisfied first to make sure that employees are not dis-motivated by the existing inequity. Following Vrooms theory the attempt to motivate employees should begin with rewarding them for the effort put in achieving organizational goals (Lindner, 1998). When students in their future job see a direct relation between their hard work to achieve companys objectives and rewards such as money or possibility to work on interesting tasks, they will be more motivated to perform well. The variety of possible options of motivating employees and a large number of theories that are in some points opposite might lead to confusion. Motivation is a very complex phenomenon which can be approached from many different angles. However, disregarding which theory is followed there are some clues for managers and HR professionals that come from the results of the research conducted for the aim of this thesis. The most relevant finding is that students from ASB and UG thought that Interesting work and Good wages would be the most important motivation factors in their future job. A good salary is definitely powerful motivator as it satisfies many needs, starting from basic needs ending at high order needs. It is also much easier to pay someone more than to make his job interesting. However, interesting work seems to be also very important for future business persons, so without any doubts this need should be satisfied as well. The possible options of making job more interesting are based on job design techniques. By job enlargement a number and variety of task could be increased and a job itself might be seen as more interesting. Job enrichment seems to be also a good way of motivating employees. Increasing employees responsibility not only could make a job more interesting but also might affect the level of pay (Lindner, 1998). Obviously, HR departments that prepare campaigns to attract students as well as managers who deal with freshly graduated employees should remember not only about wages and interesting work but also about other important factors indicated in this research. Besides good salary and interesting work students seem to value being engaged in companys life and being appreciated and recognized. Therefore, organizations should create environment that fulfills the needs of participation and belonging and provides a possibility to demonstrate an effort that can be noticed and rewarded.
57

6. Conclusion and future research The aim of this paper is to find out which motivation factors are considered as the most important by future business persons. The theoretical part of the thesis showed that a nature of motivation is very complex and there are no simple answers to the question what motivate employees. The results of the research conducted in order to find and analyze factors that motivate students from two business schools demonstrated that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators are in the top of the list. Those findings suggest that managers and HR professionals who deal with students or fresh graduates should not base only on money as a primary motivation tool. On the other hand, although non-monetary motivators are definitely powerful, they are not likely to lead to the optimal performance if they are the only source of motivation. The results of this research suggest that the most appropriate motivation and reward system should try to satisfy a variety of needs from more than one category. The perfect job for future business person should be interesting and well paid. Moreover, the work environment should create the feeling of involvement, appreciation and safety. Perhaps there should be also a great chance for promotion. The described job definitely would motivate employees to perform very well. Although, it might be hard to offer a position that satisfies all those needs, organizations should be aware of their existence. Companies can meet the challenge of attracting, motivating and retaining employees by being prepared for a variety of the expectations they have. The information gained from this paper might be a good starting point for creating motivation systems for freshly graduated employees as well as for planning recruitment campaigns focused on students from the business schools. In further research it should be determined whether findings from this study would be confirmed in other business schools in Poland and Denmark. Research on larger sample size would allow generalizing the findings to the whole population of business students in those countries. Future research could also consider other factors that might be motivating for students, such as a good atmosphere at work, fringe benefits, fit of personal values and company values. Finally, a longitude study that compare pre-employment attitudes toward motivation factors with actual attitudes of the same respondents after a few
58

years of employment would show how the expectations about own motivation turn into a real behavior and evolve during a career.

59

7.Bibliography Agrawal, S. (2010). Motivation and Executive Compensation. The IUP Journal of CorporateGovernance , Vol. 9, Nov. 1 & 2, 27-46. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Vol. 50, 179-211. Allender, H., & Allender, J. (1998). Identifying the right management job for you. Industrial Management , Mar/Apr98, Vol. 40 Issue 2, 29-31. Armstrong, M. (2007). Employee Reward Managemend and Practice. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page. Armstrong, M., & Murlis, H. (2004). Reward management : a handbook of remuneration strategy and practice. London: Kogan Page. Bailey, J., & Clegg, S. (ed). (2008). International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. Sage Publications, Inc. Bjorklund, C. (2001). Work Motivation - Studies of its Determinants and Outcomes. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, EFI, The Economic Research Institute. Bu, N., & Mckeen, C. (2001). Work goals among male and female business students in Canada and China: the effects of culture and gender. International Journal of Human Resource Management , Mar2001, Vol. 12 Issue 2, 166-183. Carrell, M., & Dittrich, J. (1978). Equity Theory: The Recent Literature, Methodological Considerations, and New Directions. Academy of Management Review , Apr78, Vol. 3 Issue 2, 202-210. Condly, S., Clark, R., & Stolovitch, H. (2008). The Effect of Incentives on Workplace Performance : A meta-analytic Review of Research Studies. Performance Improvement Quaterly , Volume 16 Issue 3, 46 - 63. Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys : a guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press. Deci, E., & Gagne, M. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , Jun2005, Vol. 26 Issue 4, 331-362. Dewhurst, M., Guthridge, M., & Mohr, E. (2009). Motivating people: Getting beyond money. McKinsey Quarterly , http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Motivating_people_Getting_beyond_money_ 2460, visited May 25th 2010 Fincham, R., & Rhodes, P. (2005). Principles of Organizational Behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
60

Frey, B., & Osterloch, M. (2002). Succesful Managment by Motivation Balancing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Incentives. Zurich: Springer. Harpaz, I. (1990). The importance of work goals: an international perspective. Journal of International Business Studies , Vol. 21 Issue 1, 75-93. Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-Hygiene Profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization. Organizational Dynamics , Autumn, Vol. 3 Issue 2, 18-29. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review , Jan/Feb68, Vol. 46 Issue 1, 53-63. Kinnear, L., & Sutherland, M. (2000). Determinants of organisational commitment amongst knowledge workers. South African Journal of Business Management , Sep2000, Vol. 31 Issue 3, 106-113. Kovach, K. (1995). Employee motivation: Addressing a crucial factor in you organization's performance. Employment Relations Today , Summer1995, Vol. 22 Issue 2, 93-107. Kovach, K. (1987). What Motivates Employees? Workers and Supervisors Give Different Answers. Business Horizons , Sep/Oct87, Vol. 30 Issue 5, 58-66. Kovach, K. (1980). Why motivational theories don't work. Advanced Management Journal , Spring80, Vol. 45 Issue 2, 54-60. Latham, G., & Ernst, C. (2006). Keys to motivating tomorrows workforce. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 , 181-198. Lawler, E. (1969). Job Design and Employees Motivation. Personnel Psychology , Winter69, Vol. 22 Issue 4, 426-435. Lim, V., Srivastava, A., & Si Sng, Q. (2008). Money motives, achievement orientation, and motivation to work among youths. Journal of International Business and Economics , Vol 8, No 3, 104-111. Lindner, J. (1998). Understanding Employee Motivation. Journal of Extension , Jun98, Volume 36, Number 3 ,Research in Brief , www.joe.org, visited May 27th 2010. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation. American Psychologist , Sep2002, Vol. 57 Issue 9, 705-717. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1979). Goal Setting - A Motivational Technique That Works. Organizational Dynamics , Autumn79, Vol. 8 Issue 2, 68-80. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the End of the Tunnel. Psychological Science , Jul90, Vol. 1 Issue 4, 240-246.
61

Lu, L. (1999). Work Motivation, Job Stress and Employees' Well-being. Journal of Applied Management Studies , Jun99, Vol. 8 Issue 1, 61-63. Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. (1999). Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and even rewards. Academy of Management Executive; , May99, Vol. 13 Issue 2, 49-57. Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. (2000, April 1). The Impact of Recognition on EmployeePerformance http://www.sba.muohio.edu/management/MWAcademy/2000/, visited June 6th 2010. Maritz Pool Survey. (2005). http://www.maritz.com/, visited June 19th 2010. Mathauer, I., & Imhoff, I. (2006). Health worker motivation in Africa: the role of non-financial incentives and human resource management tools. Human Resources for Health , http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/4/1/24, visited June 2nd 2010. Mayfield, J. R., Mayfield, M. P., & Kopf, J. (1998). The Effects of Leader Motivating Language on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction. Human Resource Management, , Fall/Winter98, Vol. 37 Issue 3/4, 235-244, visited 19th May 2010. Mc Clelland, D. (1990). Human Motivation. New Yotk: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Mc Clelland, D. (1968). Money as a motivator - Some research insights. The McKinsey Quaterly , Feb68, Vol. 57 Issue 2, 23-28. McCall, M., & Lawler, E. (1976). High School Students' Perceptions of Work. Academy of Management Journal , Mar1976, Vol. 19 Issue 1, 17-24. McClelland, D., & Burnham, D. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review , Mar/Apr76, Vol. 54 Issue 2, 100-110. Miles, E. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology , Sep96, Vol. 69 Issue 3, 277-292, 16. Miner, J. (2006). Organizational Behavior 1 : Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Oldham, G., & Hackman, R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior , Feb2010, Vol. 31 Issue 2/3, 463-479.

62

Pinder, C. (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Reif, W. (1975). Intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards: Resolving the controversy. Human Resource Management , Summer75, Vol. 14, Issue 2, 2-10. Roche, W., & MacKinnon, N. (1970). Motivating people with meaningful work. Harvard Business Review , May/Jun70, Vol. 48 Issue 3, 97-110. Rungtusanatham, M., & Anderson, J. (1996). A clarification on conceptual and methodological issues related to the Job Characteristics Model. Journal of Operations Management; , Nov96, Vol. 14 Issue 4, 357-367. Rynes, S., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: discrepancies in what people say and what they do. Human Resource Management , Vol.43, No.4, 381-394. Sagan, M., Tomkiewicz, J., Adeyemi-Bello, T., & Frankel, R. (2008). Importance of Job Characteristics among Future Businesspersons: A Comparative Study of Russian and Polish Students. International Journal of Management , Dec2008, Vol. 25 Issue 4, 641-653. Sonawane, P. (2008). Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , Oct2008, Vol. 44 Issue 2, 256-271. Tharenou, P. (1993). A test of reciprocal causality for absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior , May93, Vol. 14 Issue 3, 269-287. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

63

8. Appendix
QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH
Dear fellow students In the course of my Master Thesis project, I would like to ask you to fill a short questionnaire about factors that will motivate you in your future job (or motivate you if you already have one). Your answers are anonymous and confidential. It will take no more than 3 minutes to complete the questionnaire. 1. Gender: Male Female 2. How old are you?

3. What is your nationality?

4. Do you already have a study related job? Yes No 5. Please rank the following factors in order of how each one will motivate you in your future job or motivates you if you already have a study related job. (Where 1 = Most, 13 = Least) Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from your superiors Good wages Good working conditions (such as light, temperature, cleanliness, low noise level) Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from your superiors Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between your job requirements and your abilities and experience

Participation in goal setting

6. If there is any other factor that you find motivating at work please state it here:

7. What are three the most important factors that motivate other people? (Please mark them using X)

Job security Interesting work Personal loyalty to employees from superiors Good wages Good working conditions (such as light, temperature, cleanliness, low noise level) Promotion and growth in the organization Tactful discipline from superiors Full appreciation of work done Open communication Feeling of being well informed and involved Freedom to plan and execute work independently A good match between job requirements and abilities and experience Participation in goal setting

Your help is very much appreciated. Thank you for your support.

QUESTIONNAIRE IN POLISH

Drogie koleanki i koledzy! W ramach badania bedcego elementem mojej pracy magisterskiej, chciabym poprosi Was o wypenienie krtkiego kwestionariusza dotyczcego czynnikw, ktre bd motywoway Was w pracy po studiach (lub ju motywuj, jeli prac posiadacie) Wasze odpowiedzi s anonimowe. Wypenienie kwestionariusza zajmie okoo 3 minut. 1. Pe: Mczyzna Kobieta 2. Wiek

3. Czy masz prac zwizan z kierunkiem twoich studiw? Tak Nie 4. Prosz poukadaj ponisze czynniki w kolejnoci od najbardziej motywujcego do najmniej motywujcego. (gdzie 1=Najbardziej motywujcy. 13=Najmniej motywujcy) Gwarancja staego zatrudnienia Ciekawa praca Lojalno pracodawcy wobec pracownika Dobre zarobki Dobre warunki pracy (owietlenie, czysto, temperatura, poziom haasu) Moliwo osobistego rozwoju i doskonalenia zawodowego yczliwo przeoonego Docenianie osigni przez pracodawc Otwarta komunikacja w firmie Poczucie zaangaowania i penego uczestnictwa w dziaaniach firmy Moliwo samodzielnego planowania i wykonywania pracy

Dobre dopasowanie stawianych wymaga do umiejtnoci i dowiadczenia Wspudzia w ustalaniu celw

5. Jeli na powyszej licie nie znalaze czynnika, ktry uwaasz za motywujcy podaj go tu:

6. Jakie 3 czynniki najczciej motywuj ludzi? (Zaznacz X)

Gwarancja staego zatrudnienia Ciekawa praca Lojalno pracodawcy wobec pracownika Dobre zarobki Dobre warunki pracy (owietlenie, czysto, temperatura, poziom haasu) Moliwo osobistego rozwoju i doskonalenia zawodowego yczliwo przeoonego Docenianie osigni przez pracodawc Otwarta komunikacja w firmie Poczucie zaangaowania i penego uczestnictwa w dziaaniach firmy Moliwo samodzielnego planowania i wykonywania pracy Dobre dopasowanie stawianych wymaga do umiejtnoci i dowiadczenia Wspudzia w ustalaniu celw

Dzikuj za pomoc!