Employee Motivation Research Project Libre

8/10/2019 Employee Motivation Research Project Libre

1/28

!"#$%&'' )%*+,-*+%. -./ +*0)%0* 1.2$3'.*+-$ 4-5*%60

"#$%$' ()#*

"#)($++)# ,- .#)/$+

012/$#+23- )( 4$/&'&5 6$1)

"#$%$' 7-*

6&1'&88 9: ;$#


2/28

To: Mary Groves

From: Randall E. BerksonRoss W. MartinBrandon V. SmithJordan M. Worley

Date: December 13, 2011

Subject: Report on Employee Motivation

Here is the report on employee motivation you requested. It is titled Employee Motivation and

its Most Influential Factors.

This report outlines the methods used in the study to gather data about the various factors thatinfluence employee motivation and how to better motivate the companys employees in thefuture.


3/28

"

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,

9H9I0JK>9 ?0,,L6M ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: C

?9IJKN4 K ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: O

K4J6NP0IJKN4 K4JN JQ9 ?J0PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: O

#$%&'()*%#'$ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ,

-%.%/0/$% '1 2&'34/0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ,

-#5$#1#*.$*/ '1 %6/ -%)(7 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ,

-*'2/ '1 %6/ -%)(7 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 8

&/9#/: '1 &/4.%/( 4#%/&.%)&/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 8

0/%6'(- '1 %6/ -%)(7 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ;

RK,KJLJKN4? NS JQ9 ?J0PM :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: T

?9IJKN4 KK :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: U

SK4PK4.?5 IN4IR0?KN4?5 L4P 69IN,,94PLJKN4? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: U

#$%&'()*%#'$ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >

*'$*4)-#'$- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >@69IN,,94PLJKN4? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: CF

=N6V? IKJ9P :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: CO

L""94PKH L* 9,"RNM99 ,NJK>LJKN4 W09?JKN44LK69 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: CX

L""94PKH ;* PLJL L4LRM?K? Y JL;R9? L4P SK.069?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: CZ

L""94PKH I* "69?94JLJKN4 N0JRK49 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DC

L""94PKH P* "N=96 "NK4J ?RKP9? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DF


4/28


5/28

>

34%51+.6% 7188"29

Introduction

This study was executed in order to measure the employees current satisfaction of motivationalfactors and incentives in the company, as well as to use that information to determine whichfactors and incentives could be changed, implemented, or eliminated in order to motivate them todo their best work in the future.

The study was conducted by issuing a questionnaire to all employees working at the companyheadquarters in Reno. The employees that participated were both full-time and part-time, fromall different departments, and have been working at the company for varied periods of time. Thequestionnaire was split into four different parts, and the data derived from the questionnaire wasanalyzed and presented in this report in four criteria: communication in the workplace, income of

employees, long-term incentives, and non-financial incentives.

Findings

Demographic Profile

The respondents of the questionnaire were 53.33% male and 46.67% female. The company has avery young workforce, with 75% of the sample respondents being 33 years of age or younger.According to the questionnaire data, 65% of the respondents make less than $30,000 per year.Nearly 70% of the employees work 40 hours or less per week, and more that 75% of the

respondents are single.

Communication in the Workplace

According to the study, 48.33% of the employees believe that improvements can be made to thecommunication within the company. In regard to employee-manager interactions, 30% of therespondents believe their manager or boss does not communicate with them enough, although thestudy showed a generally positive opinion of the companys managers and their managementstyles. The correlation between good communication and high motivation are strong, accordingto the Pearson Correlation that was run for the two factors.

Income in the Workplace

The 65% of respondents that make less than $30,000 per year rated Management Support andCompany Emphasis on Incentives and Creativity lower on the 1 (strongly disagree) to 6(strongly agree) point scale than did the respondents making $30,000 per year or over, by ratingvarious statements in Part III of the questionnaire comprising the overall Management and


6/28

@

Company categories. The low-income segment also rated three out of four motivationalfactors (gaining proficiency at their job, financial incentives, and achieving recognition, credit,and acclaim) as more motivating than the high-income segment did.

Long-Term Incentives

When ranking which incentives were most motivating to them, employees in the sample selecteda long-term incentive as their number 2 choice out of a possible 8, which was the opportunityfor promotion at the company. There was a moderate correlation between the existence of long-term incentives, such as promotion, and the level of motivation an employee had toward theircurrent job. It was found that short-term incentives may possibly be detrimental to motivationwhen 55% of employees noted that when they are presented with a short term project, that theyare very likely to use past methods to complete it instead of innovative new ones.

Non-Financial Incentives

Employees in the sample chose Pay (salary/wage) as their most motivating incentive, withBenefits, Flexibility, and Recognition placing 3rd, 4th, and 5th, respectively. Flexibility andRecognition are non-financial incentives that ranked higher than Performance Bonuses andTuition Reimbursement, which are financial incentives. However, it was found that CompanyParties and Socials were ranked last (8th) as a motivating incentive. Based on the informationreceived from Part III of the questionnaire (the rating section), pure financial incentives actuallyranked 3rd-most motivating, behind gaining proficiency and job mastering (1st), as well as seeingthe impact their work has on the company and others (2nd).

Conclusions

Employees at the company want better communication with their immediate managers and thecompany as a whole. They want to know how they are doing, what to improve on, and what theyare good at. With 55% of the respondents only somewhat motivated at their current positionsand many believing the quality of communication at the company is insufficient, it is veryrational to believe that an increase in communication quality will lead to an increase in overallemployee motivation.

The research and findings illustrate that competitive wages are a strong motivational factor,especially for the lower-income demographic of the company. They are less pleased with

management and the company, which helps lead to their comparatively low motivation levels.They desire a higher income but are often forced to settle for non-financial incentives when theirwishes are not granted. That makes them value these incentives more highly than the higher-income demographic values them, but that is because they do not have a high income tomotivate them and help them forget about other forms of motivation.

Mastering a job is a strong motivational factor, as are salary and other financial incentives(bonuses, etc.), but many employees like to seek advancement in the company. These forms of


7/28


8/28

,

Employee Motivation and its Most Influencing Factors

7%5+.'* :

:*+2';15+.'* .*+' +


9/28

8

peers. If there is a greater level of understanding and cohesion between employees and managers,the company as a whole will prosper.

75'>% '( +


10/28

;

Grant and Gino (2010), concluded in their study A Little Thanks Goes a Long Way:Explaining Why Gratitude Expressions Motivate Prosocial Behavior that gratitude shown in theworkplace can promote prosocial behavior the carries throughout the company. In theirdiscussion they state, Our findings complement this line of research by demonstrating that

expressions of gratitude, not only experiences of gratitude, have spillover effects on prosocialbehavior. As such, our research suggests that gratitude expressions may have importanttheoretical and practical implications for encouraging prosocial behaviors that promotecooperation (p. 953)

Schoeffler (2005), a contributor to the Insurance Journal, explains that incentives should be in athree tier incentive scheme: recognition, short-term, and long term. The basic concept is to allowfor incentives that will motivate different personality types. For example, some people enjoyimmediate satisfaction and some enjoy satisfaction that is delayed but has taken time to build up.Recognition is a key role in motivating which is a non-financial incentive that reflects feedback.

A%+


11/28

B

team conducting the study, and were asked to submit the questionnaire to their respectivedepartment supervisor in a sealed envelope after it was completed. Each department supervisorthen gave the questionnaires back to the research team for data evaluation and analysis.

Statistical Methods

The first part of the questionnaire, collecting simple demographic info, was utilized to determinehow similar or different the different responders were. Though distributed to similar employees,these key questions can give insight into where somebody is in life and how that might affecttheir outlook on their job motivation.

Part II of the questionnaire was a ranking question that was simply analyzed with a Borda Countmethod. Pearson Correlations were used to compare certain sections of the survey data in PartsII-IV. These correlations can be found on Table 2 in Appendix B.

Part III of the questionnaire was a section that asked respondents to rank a series of ten

statements from 1 to 6, with the 1 ranking meaning strongly disagree, and the 6 rankingmeaning strongly agree. For each statement, the most common rankings chosen by therespondents were calculated, as well as the overall averages for the 60 respondents. To do this,all of the numerical rankings were summed and then divided by 360, which represented the totalnumber of points possible (high of 6 for each statement multiplied by the number of respondents[60]). Then that percentage was multiplied by 6 to get the average ranking for each statement.After an average ranking was found for each individual statement, the statements were groupedinto different segments, with the first two statements comprising the Management Supportsegment, statements 3 through 6 comprising the Company Emphasis on Incentives andCreativity segments, and 7 through 10 remaining as individual statements about variousmotivational factors. The averages were then calculated for each segment and analyzed.

-.8.+"+.'*, '( +


12/28


13/28

=

!"##$%&'()&"% &% )+, -"./01(',

Part IV of the questionnaire asked multiple choice questions regarding employees opinions ofthe effectiveness of communication throughout the company and within their respectivedepartments. When asked directly what they thought about the communication in the company,

48.33% answered that they thought it had problems in certain areas and needed improvement inorder to make them truly satisfied. 38.33% thought it was fairly strong but imperfect, meaningit could still improve in order to make them feel more like a part of the team. 55% ofrespondents claimed to feel only somewhat motivated at their job instead of highly motivated,and a fairly high correlation was found between good communication in the workplace and highmotivation in employees, after a Pearson Correlation was used to analyze the data gathered fromthe returned questionnaires (the full version of the various correlations ran for the study can befound at Table 2 in Appendix B).

This helps explain, in part, why employees at the company do not feel as motivated as theybelieve they could with more effective motivating factors and incentives. Good communication

in the workplace is therefore a strong motivating factor in many cases, because in this study, thegood-but-imperfect overall view of communication effectiveness in the company can be found toimpact employees motivation levels in their respective jobs, which are solid but not as high asthey could be.

In Part III, employees were also asked about how much they felt managers cared about thempersonally, and how much effort they felt managers were making to instill a solid level ofmotivation in their departments. Overall, respondents feel neutrally-to-positively about themanagement styles they are exposed to at work, and they feel that managers do a decent job ofcaring about employees and attempting to motivate them. 43.33% claim their manager talks tothem on a regular basis and is helpful, but 26.67% claim their manager only talks to them when it

is necessary or when problems arise. Nearly half of the respondents feel that it is most helpfuland least obtrusive when their boss or manager gives them job feedback or talks to them abouttheir work on a weekly basis. So if that is not happening, as is indicated by the 30% that feeltheir boss isnt communicating with them enough, it can affect their overall motivation level.

2%'"#, "3 4#01"5,,6

As noted the Demographic Profile, most of the respondents in this study make a relatively lowannual income. 65% of the employees that responded to the questionnaire make less than$30,000 per year, with 38.33% making less than $20,000. Therefore, analyzing the data based

on lower and higher income demographics (65% lower, 35% higher) was the most interestingway to conduct the study, because it gave a detailed look at the polarizing views of each segmentdue to the questions asked and answered, and it depicts the influence pay can have on everyaspect of an employees satisfaction at work, including their level of motivation.

In the Statistical Methods section in Section I of this report, the method used in analyzing thedata from Part III of the questionnaire gave accurate averages of the rankings respondents gaveto each statement, as well as to the segments (or categories) the statements were later split up


14/28

>?

into (Table 3; Appendix B). After these figures were found, the averages were calculated foreach statement and category just for the demographic segment of employees making less than$30,000 per year (Table 4; Appendix B), and also for the demographic segment earning equal toor more than $30,000 per year (Table 5; Appendix B), and the deviations between the twosamples were quite interesting. In the Management Support category, those with yearly

incomes of under $30,000 ranked management 4.14 out of 6 in regard to how much they feelmanagement cares about them as individuals, as well has how they much feel management caresabout motivating them to do their best work. The company itself fared slightly worse with itslow-income employees, ranking 3.52 out of 6 in regard to its emphasis on creativity andinnovation, incentives offered, and the achievability of upward mobility in the company. Incontrast, the high-income employees in the sample rated Management Support higher at 4.38out of 6, and Company Emphasis on Incentives and Creativity higher as well at 4.15 out of 6,showing a bit of a disconnect between the two different income demographics.

The high-income and low-income demographic segments both rated how greatly certain types ofincentives motivated them to do their best work. The low-income segment rated gaining

proficiency at my job and mastering my position as the most motivating factor to them in theworkplace, followed by seeing the impact my work has on the company and others outside thecompany, financial incentives, and then finally achieving recognition, credit, and acclaim.However, the high-income segment rated seeing the impact as their most motivating factor,followed be gaining proficiency, and then had the same exact averages for financialincentives and achieving recognition The low-income segment rated the three factors otherthan seeing the impact an average of 0.41 points higher than the high-income segment.

On question 9 of the multiple choice section of the questionnaire (Part IV), the employeesmaking less than $30,000 per year chose very motivated almost 10% less than the sample ofrespondents as a whole. In addition, the percentage of low-income employees who claimed theyare somewhat motivated was higher than that of the sample as a whole, as were thepercentages of low-income employees who are unmotivated or very unmotivated.

7"%89:,.# 2%',%)&;,6

The respondents answered a ranking question in Part II of the questionnaire that asked them whatincentives they found to be most motivating from 1stto 8thplace. The respondents indicated theopportunity for promotion was the second most important motivating factor after salary/wage.Moreover, there was a moderate correlation between the perception of the existence ofachievable long-term incentives (Section III, Question # 4) and how currently motivated the

respondents were (Section V, Question #9). This would also relate to Mansos (2011) researchin that long-term incentives and job stability fosters motivation and innovation. Opportunity forpromotions would fall under the category of long-term incentives because of the nature of whichthey occur (i.e. not quarterly or typically in short time periods).

In Section IV of the survey, questions 1 and 2 dealt with the likelihood of the respondents toeither implement a new method or to use a past successful method to complete a short termproject. The results were quite interesting, because none of the respondents said they would be


15/28

>>

unlikely or very unlikely to complete a short-term project with past successful methods. Despitebeing inconclusive, this indicates that there is a higher probability that short-term projects wouldcomplete in past used methods. Table 5 in Appendix B shows the breakdown of answers fromquestions 1 and 2.


16/28

>@

shows that approximately half of respondents are praised and personally thanked for a job welldone after doing a great job on a task or project. The other half, in this case, was split, butmostly noted that they were neither thanked nor financially rewarded for great work on a certaintask or project. Incredibly few respondents were solely given financial rewards. Theseresponses, when compared to the results of Part III of the survey, seem to convey that

recognition is as much an essential factor regarding motivation as financial incentives.

)'*5$1,.'*,

Communication was found to be a contributing factor in motivating employees, and a companywith effective communication will help make employees feel more involved and appreciated. Ifemployees have a greater respect for their company and are satisfied with the way information isrelayed to them, they will be more motivated in the workplace and their work will improve as aresult. The amount of communication between managers and employees is very critical, and

overall employee motivation can depend on how much they feel the manager cares about them asindividuals and values their work as well. There is definitely room for improvement in thequality of communication at the company.

The respondents of the questionnaire in the low-income demographic were less motivated andwere slightly more critical of the quality of communication in the company, management styles,and the companys effort to offer achievable and worthwhile incentives. They felt more stronglythan the higher-income demographic about the ability of financial incentives, achievingrecognition and credit, and gaining proficiency at their job to motivate them to do their bestwork. This is primarily because they earn a lower wage and feel the need to compensate for theirlack of pay by feeling more strongly about and putting more emphasis on the ideas of incentivesand other motivational factors in the workplace, whether they are actually receiving them or not.By receiving a higher wage, these employees overall motivation levels would increase becausethey would no longer be lacking that important motivational factor and having to compensate.

Long-term incentives such as opportunity for promotion, along with other like incentives, arebeneficial in influencing more overall productivity. Also, short-term financial incentives couldgive motivation to only do what has been successful in the past and not to be creative.

While employees find their pay to be an undeniably vital aspect of their jobs, it cannot stand onits own as the sole incentive provided by the company. Though important, financial incentiveswere actually found to be less motivating than the employee simply gaining proficiency at their

job, or the employees work having a noticeable effect on the company. Where financialrewards might be excessive, inappropriate, or unaffordable, being praised or personally thankedcan facilitate the employees desire to have a greater, more meaningful effect on the company.


17/28

>A

?%5'88%*;"+.'*,

The following recommendations are made to the company based on the findings and conclusionsof this study on employee motivation and its most influencing factors, for the purpose of

enhancing the overall level of employee motivation in the company and increasing workefficiency.

1. Provide more competitive wages to the low-income segment of the company.

2. Increase the possibility of employee promotion in the company by promoting from withinrather than hiring from the outside.

3. Encourage more frequent communication between managers and their employees, andimplement team-building and communication exercises to help strengthen therelationship and trust between the two groups.

4. Put effort into ensuring that employees are properly credited and receive recognition forthe good work they do in their respective positions.

5. Offer more opportunities for job advancement and education, in order to allow employeesto completely master their respective positions.


18/28

>,

D'2E, ).+%;

Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J., & Manso, G. (2011). Incentives and creativity: Evidence from theacademic lifesciences.Rand Journal of Economics, Retrieved from:http://www.mit.edu/~manso/hhmi.pdf.

Ederer, F., & Manso, G. (2011). Is pay-for-performance detrimental to innovation? Retrievedfrom: http://www.mit.edu/~manso/em.pdf.

Grant, A., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitudeexpressions motivate prosocial behavior.A Little Thanks Goes A Long Way: Explaining WhyGratitudeExpresses Pro Social Behavior, 98(6), 953. Retrieved from:http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/grant/GrantGino_JPSP2010.pdf.

Grant, A., & Singh, J. (2011). The problem with financial incentives -- and what to do aboutit.Knowledge @ Wharton, Retrieved from:http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2741.

Schoeffler, B. (2005). Employee incentive plans: Make them worthwhile.Insurance Journal,Retrieved from: http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/features/2005/04/18/54614.htm


19/28

>8

F>>%*;.4 FG 38>$'9%% A'+.6"+.'* H1%,+.'**".2%

/789 &: /;?8>;< 9@< 7AA8BA8?79< BA9?BC

=A&3 2+ -)[# +$\]

0EFG 1GHEFG

=A&3 2+ -)[# +3&3[+]

-"IJFG ("KLMNGO

0EMM"GO :"OLPGO

-GQEMERGO

=A&3 2+ -)[# &^$ #&1^$]S>B 8?D8B

>=V=== UB8V??? D U==V===

U@?V??? D U@=V=== U>??V??? D U>,=V===

UA?V??? D UA=V=== U>8?V??? D U>==V===

U,?V??? D U,=V=== U@??V??? D U@,=V===

U8?V??? D UB,V=== TU@8?V???

Q)` 8)1^ A&/$ -)[ 7$$1 &3 -)[# _[##$13 a)7]

S> WGEM ? WGEMX

@D, WGEMX T>> WGEMX

8DB WGEMX

Q)` @&1- A)[#+ %$# `$$< ') -)[ `)#< )1 &/$#&^$]

S>? A>D,?

>>D@? ,>D8?

@>DA? T8?


20/28

>;

;- `A2_A @$3A)' ') -)[ $ `&^$+]

6LYMFW -EFEMW 'RZGM[ \\\\\\\\\\

/789 &&: /;_`KENER"LI LM X"N_ QEWa

*LHQEIW XLN"EFX`QEMR"GX`NGFGbMER"LIX

'QQLMRYI"RW ]LM QMLHLR"LI

2GM]LMHEINGDbEXGO bLIYXGX

&GNLJI"R"LI ]LM JLLO PLM_

-EFEMW`ZLYMFW PEJG

-NZGOYFG ]FGc"b"F"RW

%Y"R"LI MG"HbYMXGHGIR

/789 &&&: /; @ A , 8 ; -RMLIJFW .JMGG

X K &@ +&32+(2$' `23A 3A$ 21_$132/$+ @- _)@%&1- )(($#+:

-RMLIJFW ("XEJMGG > @ A , 8 ; -RMLIJFW .JMGG


21/28

>B

c JA$ %)++272823- )( ^$3321^ & %#)@)32)1 21(8[$1_$+ @- %$#()#@&1_$:

-RMLIJFW ("XEJMGG > @ A , 8 ; -RMLIJFW .JMGG

T S21&1_2&8 21_$132/$+ @)32/&3$ @$ 3) ') @- 7$+3 `)# @ A , 8 ; -RMLIJFW .JMGG

Z .&2121^ %#)(2_2$1_- &3 @- a)7 &1' @&+3$#21^ @- %)+232)1 @)32/&3$+ @$ 3) ') @- 7$+3 `)# @ A , 8 ; -RMLIJFW .JMGG

/789 &6: /;?8>;< 9@< IK;9?A;< >@B?>< 7C=F


22/28

>

Employee Motivation Research Project Libre

Documents

Transcript of Employee Motivation Research Project Libre