RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKPLACE MOTIVATION...

Volume 4, Number 3, July – September’ 2015

ISSN (Print):2279-0934, (Online):2279-0942

PEZZOTTAITE JOURNALS SJIF (2012): 3.735, SJIF (2013): 5.020, SJIF (2014): 5.996

International Journal of Retailing & Rural Business Perspectives © Pezzottaite Journals. 1773 |P a g e

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKPLACE MOTIVATION

AND ABSENTEEISM AMONG EMPLOYEES IN RETAIL INDUSTRY

Khagendra Nath Gangai27 Rachna Agrawal28 Monika Gupta29

ABSTRACT

The workplace motivation is an important factor for employees to perform better and give their best to the organization. In

today‟s competitive environment organizations thrive and survive on their human resources to motivate their employee‟s best

possible manner. The work place motivation is key factor for the better performance, productivity and growth of any

organization. Employees are very often absent from workplace due to lack of motivation in their job. Job satisfaction has been

noted as one of the factors influencing an employee‟s motivation to attend. The purpose of this study is to examine the

relationship between workplace motivation and absenteeism among employee of retail industry in Delhi & NCR region, India.

Therefore, this study could make important contribution to managerial solution to the problem of absenteeism. The objectives

of the study are: (1) To find out the factors responsible for absenteeism, (2) To investigate the relationship between workplace

motivation and absenteeism of employees. A total of 60 samples were collected through convenience sample technique and the

data were calculated usage of statistical application of correlation matrix and descriptive statistics. The result shown that

there is a prevalence of high absenteeism and low motivation. Correlation matrix shows that motivation and absenteeism are

negatively related.

KEYWORDS

Workplace Motivation, Absenteeism, Performance, Job Satisfaction etc.

INTRODUCTION

Employee absenteeism is an expensive management problem that concerns employers. In the past literature, it has been observed

that the consistent patterns of absence behavior across organizations of varying sizes, industries, and indifferent regions of the

country. The absences of employees at workplace generate huge losses of productivity and its cost to organizations millions of

dollars each year (Dalton & Mesch, 1991; Mason & Griffin, 2003). The one of the most common theories is the notion that

absenteeism is caused by employees avoiding a painful or dissatisfying work situation which due to lack of motivation. The

relationship between job satisfaction, motivation and other factors to absenteeism may provide important insight for managers

who must cope with the consequences of employee absenteeism. Understanding these factors may help managers design policies

that provide positive work environments, prompting employees to have positive feelings about the work situation (Gangai, 2014).

The cost of absenteeism can be a significant drain on organization‘s budgets. Absenteeism may be caused by the employee's

inability to come to work; motivation to attend work is assumed a major factor determining how often an employee is absent

(Obasan Kehinde, 2011).

There are a number of reasons why people need to take time off work; the majority of which are genuine and these absences need

to be handled sensitively and fairly through carefully managed procedures. However if reasons are not found to be genuine it can

be demoralizing for those who do attend work regularly if the absence is not tackled and others are seen to ―get away with it‖.

Generally, it has been observed many authors that workplace conflict creates low job motivation and a severe impact on the work

motivation, satisfaction, and performance of employees which represents the primary cause of absenteeism (Nauta et al., 2004;

Nauta and Ybema, 2003; De Dreu et al., 2003).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Absenteeism has been defined as the non-attendance of employees for scheduled work (Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982). This

definition distinguishes absenteeism from other forms of non-attendance (such as public holidays and annual leave) that are

arranged in advance. In turn, unscheduled absences can be divided into voluntary and involuntary absences. The former are

associated with an employee's motivation to attend while the latter are associated with the inability to attend through perhaps

illness or injury (Brooke and Price, 1989). From a managerial perspective, the voluntary form of absence might be considered

more important as it is this form of non-attendance, which is determined by factors that often lie within management's control.

27Assistant Professor, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan‘s Usha & Lakshmi Mittal Institute of Management (B.U.L.M.I.M.), New Delhi,

India, [email protected] 28Assistant Professor, New Delhi Institute of Management (N.D.I.M.), New Delhi, India, [email protected] 29Executive (HR), Spectral Consultants, New Delhi, India, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







Three Perspectives on Absenteeism

There has been a considerable body of research on the determinants of absenteeism. Over the last two decades, several major

conceptual models of absenteeism have been formulated. These models predominantly derive from the economic, psychological

and sociological perspectives.

The economic perspective attempts to explain absenteeism from a labor-leisure choice perspective (Barmby, Orme and Treble,

1991; Drago and Wooden, 1992). Specifically, it is suggested that employees will be absent when the benefits of not working

outweigh the costs of not working. Employees are assumed utility-maximizing individuals whose decisions on the desired levels

of income, leisure and risk will affect the amount of absence taken. Economists consider that pay, fringe benefits and policy issues

are integral to explaining work attendance. They have shown, for example, that lower rates of absence are associated with higher

pay, the attachment of fringe benefits to working hours and lower levels of paid sick leave (Allen, 1981; Dunn and Youngblood,

1986).

The psychological perspective draws on the expectancy theory of employee motivation as developed by Vroom (1964) to explain

absence behavior. Employees are assumed to make decisions to maximize valued outcomes (Steers and Rhodes, 1978). Particular

emphasis is placed on the affective or emotional responses of employees to organizational and job conditions, and the cognitive

evaluation of an employee's decision not to attend. It is assumed that employees enter organizations with preconceived

orientations, cognitions and expectations, which, if not met, will induce absenteeism.

The third approach to the study of absenteeism - that taken by sociologists - incorporates concepts from both the economic and

psychological models, but adds a structural dimension relating to the work setting and environment (Brooke, 1986; Brooke and

Price, 1989). The centralization of decision-making or the reutilizations of work are examples of a structural condition, while

external responsibilities (for example, family and personal obligations outside work) are an example of an environmental

condition.

Social influence theories hold that members of a work unit develop shared attitudes about their jobs and organization because they

have opportunities for information exchange, share similar structural characteristics, and generally experience the same events

(e.g., Rentsch, 1990; Rentsch & Steel, 2003; Ryan, Schmit, & Johnson, 1996; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Schneider & Reichers,

1983). In addition, unit supervisors and managers are responsible for the implementation and interpretation of organizational

policies, rules, and procedures, and thus may guide employees to respond to organizational events in similar ways (Gellatly, 1995;

Rentsch & Steel, 2003). Situational and social influences tend to create relatively homogeneous attitudes within work units,

including shared levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Jehn, Rupert & Nauta (2006) conducted surveys and interviews with 30 conflict parties involved in mediation and examined the

effects of asymmetry of parties‘ perceptions of task and relationship conflict on absenteeism, motivation, and satisfaction with the

mediation. Using quantitative and qualitative data it was found that these perceived asymmetries were negatively associated with

work motivation and satisfaction, and positively associated with absenteeism.

Thirulogasundaram and Sahu (2014) job satisfaction is linked with motivation and it has been considered as one of the

instrumental factor that influencing an employee to attend and perform systematically the assigned jobs. The results found that the

extrinsic sources of job satisfaction have a direct impact on absenteeism.

Impact of Motivation on Performance

Daigeler (2008) and Niermeyer and Seyffert (2007) stated that appropriate leadership style in the organization is plays a crucial

role for subordinates motivation at workplace. But, managers may motivate only in limited dimensions, because of lack of power,

autonomy and the basic motives lie hidden within the subordinates. Manager only stimulates subordinates; the system of stimulus

can take the eye off the job description (Daigeler, 2008). According to Niermeyer and Seyffert (2007), a human personality, which

is derived from general achievement motivations as well as specific motivations, is slowly influenced by other people. Therefore,

adequate attention is required to pay subordinates for develops internal motivation. Sometimes, mangers shows disrespect, not

appreciate for his/her contribution and communicate properly to their subordinates (Plamínek, 2010). Thus, subordinates lose

motivation at workplace. The more subordinates lose motivation and their performance decreases, the more physical problems,

absenteeism and turnover arise (Crainer, 2004). Bělohlávek (2008), Jenkins (2009) and Ramlall (2004) describe the causes of

turnover as disharmony with internal motivation. If a need at a higher level of Maslow‘s pyramid of needs is not satisfied, an

individual aims at satisfying a need at a lower hierarchical level. The most common case is that an employee‘s unfulfilled

expectation in the area of self-development translates into the development of relationship needs (Bělohlávek, 2008; Mikuláštík,

2007). Should these be unsatisfactory as well, an employee leaves his/her job.





Hackman and Oldham (1980) concentrated on employees of educational institutions and scientists, six major factors determine

turnover. These factors include the level of compensation and benefits, promotion and development, meaningfulness of work, a

superior‘s style of management, relationships with colleagues and work safety. Anderson (2009) mentions the 3R system

(Recognition, Respect, Relationships) as the main reason for employee satisfaction. Anderson (2009), Branham (2005) and

Katcher and Snyder (2007) extend this by adding remuneration, a suitable culture in the workplace and security (and safety) at

work. Ramlall (2004) divides the motivational factors leading to employee satisfaction in their work position into satisfying basic

motivational needs. According to Maslow (1943), equal treatment, fulfillment of expectations and work environment are plays

important role to develop motivation among employees and less dissatisfaction in their jobs, reduce absenteeism and turnover.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The aim of the study is to identify the cause and effect of absenteeism and its relationship with workplace motivation. The

following research objectives are:

To find out the factors that is responsible for absenteeism.

To investigate the relationship between work motivation and absenteeism at work place in future groups home town.

Hypothesis: There will be significant relationship between work motivation and absenteeism at workplace.

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Research Design: The present study was focused on initially exploratory research design. The method of data collection fully

monitoring by the researcher. The purpose of the study was based on co-relational research design and cross-sectional level. The

scope of the study that includes breadth and depth of the study determine by statistical in nature. The participants‘ perception of

the research activity is needed to be in the actual routine mode.

Sample Design: A total of 60 samples were collected from retail industry in Delhi & NCR region. The convenience sampling

technique was used for data collection. The participants were consists of employees at various level such as managerial level,

supervisors, coordinators, other middle level staffs in the organization.

Instruments: The following instruments were used in the present study:

Absenteeism Questionnaire: This questionnaire was made to identify the reasons that lead to absenteeism in the company.

It has 16 factors listed and out of which the main factors are to be identified, so that proper suggestion for the same can be

given to the management. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale.

Workplace Motivation Questionnaire: This has 20 statements for rating the level of motivation of an employee. This

questionnaire was created by Aspina.com for their online course module. It is freely available on site. The rating was based

on 1-I fully agree, 2- I agree, 3- I‘m not sure, 4- I disagree and 5- I fully disagree.

Data Collection Procedure: Primary data were collected through filled up questionnaire that are workplace motivation &

absenteeism from participants who were in managerial level, supervisors, and coordinators, other middle level staff in the

organization.

Data Analysis: The data were analyzed help of frequency distribution, percentage, pie charts and mean, standard deviation, inter-

correlation matrix.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Qualitative Analysis of Results

Table-1: Experience Period of Employees

S. No. Experience Number of Respondents %

1 Below 6 months 25 42

2 6 months-1 year 20 33

3 1 year-2 years 14 23

4 Above 2 years 1 2

Total 60 100

Sources: Authors Compilation





Interpretation: 42% of the respondents have been working with the company for less than 6 months. 33% of the respondents have

been with company for between 6 months and 1 year. 23% of the respondents have completed between 1 and 2 years with

company. A negligent 2 % have been employed for more than 2 years with the company.

Table-2: Provision of Leave When Asked by Employees

S. No. Response Number of Respondents %

1 Yes 20 33

2 No 40 67

Total 60 100


Interpretation: A whopping 67% agree that the company does not provide adequate leave when they ask for it, whereas only 33%

feel that they get the required leave when they need it.

Table-3: Duration of Leave taken in a Month


1 None 0 0

2 Once in a month 12 20

3 Two days in a month 32 53

4 Three days in a month 16 27

5 Four days in a month 0 0

6 More than four days in a month 0 0

Total 60 100


Interpretation : Of the 60 respondents, 53% said they take leave as often as two days in a month, 27% said they take leave as

often as three days in a month and 20% said they take leave as often as once in a month.

Table-4: Reasons for Taking Leave from Work


1 Family problem 15 25

2 Personal problem 18 30

3 Religious matter 1 1

4 Social obligation 0 0

5 Sickness 9 15

6 Lack of interest in job 6 10

7 Poor working conditions 0 0

8 Long working hours 11 19

Total 60 100


Interpretation: 30% of the respondents said that personal problem was the reason for them taking leave from the work. 25% of

the respondents said that family problem was the reason for taking leave and 19% feel that long working hours is the reason for

them taking leave from work. 15% said that sickness was the major reason, 10% said that lack of interest in their job was the

reason and a meager 1% said that they take leave because of religious matter.

Table-5: Effect of Absenteeism


1 Cause Work Stress 11 18

2 Delayed Performance 7 13

3 Lead to Overtime 21 35

4 Less Turnover 11 18

5 All of the Above 10 16

Total 60 100






Interpretation: 35% of the respondents believe that absenteeism leads to overtime at workplace, whereas 18% of the respondents

feel that absenteeism causes high work stress and subsequently less turnover of production. 13% of the respondents said that

delayed performance was the result of absenteeism and 16% of the respondents said that absenteeism leads to all of the effects,

namely, work stress, delayed performance, overtime and fewer turnovers.

Table-6: Ways to Reduce Absenteeism


1 Increase in Number of Holidays 7 11

2 Better Working Conditions 11 18

3 Providing Non-Monetary Benefit 9 15

4 Better Performance Appraisal 8 13

5 Adopting Job Rotation 0 0

6 Job Enrichment 5 8

7 Coordination with Co-Workers 9 16

8 Efficient Superior 11 19

Total 60 100


Interpretation: 19% of the respondents said that efficient superior could help reduce absenteeism at workplace. 18% said that

providing better working conditions would reduce absenteeism, whereas 16% said that better coordination with co-workers could

be a way to reduce absenteeism. 15% of the respondents said that providing non-monetary benefit to the employee might help

reduce absenteeism at workplace whereas 13% said that to reduce absenteeism the employee should be appraised more

appropriately. 11% of the respondents feel that increasing the number of holidays provided to the employee might reduce

absenteeism and only 8 % feel that Job enrichment was the solution.

Descriptive Statistics

Table-7: Mean and Standard Deviation of Work Motivation and Absenteeism

Mean Std. Deviation N

Motivation 55.7167 3.43013 60

Absenteeism 66.3833 4.31431 60


The mean frequency of Motivation is 55.7 and a variation in the frequency represented by standard deviation of 3.4. The mean

frequency of Absenteeism is 66.3 and a variation in the frequency represented by standard deviation of 4.3. From the data, we can

see that there is high absenteeism in the organization and low motivation of employees. Hence, the company should focus on

creating a better work environment so that the employees are adequately motivated and stay less absent at work.

Table-8: Correlation Matrix of Work Motivation and Absenteeism (N=60)

Motivation Absenteeism

Motivation Pearson Correlation 1 -.301*

Sig. (2-tailed) .020

N 60 60

Absenteeism Pearson Correlation -.301* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .020

N 60 60

Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


The Table-4.8 indicates the correlation between motivation and absenteeism is statistically significant at 0.05 confidence level (r=

-.301). This means that motivation of employees directly influences the employee absenteeism at workplace. It can also be seen

that correlation between motivation and absenteeism is negative in nature. This signifies a negative relationship between the two





variables, i.e., low motivation of the employee leads to high prevalence of absenteeism at workplace. Thus, the Hypothesis which

states that there will be significant relationship between work motivation and absenteeism at workplace is confirmed.

CONCLUSION

From the results, it is quite clear that the employees at retail industry suffer a low motivation at work. This is the main reason

which is leading to them being absent from their work. Low motivation means that the employee is not happy about his job and is

not provided with adequate and effective motivation to do his job. As a result, he prefers to stay absent from work. This means

that there is a need for proper implementation of leave policy in the company. The work environment needs to be made conducive

for the employee so that he gets enough motivation to do work and restrains from being absent unnecessarily. Unless a

management attendance program identifies and addresses the causes of employee absenteeism, it will be ineffective and unfair.

Traditional disciplinary programs alone can, at best, give the illusion of control. It is no secret that there are ways to beat even the

best systems. The fear of discipline often only increases the desire to avoid management systems. If absenteeism is to be

controlled, the physical and emotional needs of employees must be addressed. Incentives can be introduced to discourage

absenteeism. Attendance bonus is awarded in certain establishments, merit increases and promotions are linked to minimum

attendance. Good leave record of the employee is an important factor in considering him for positions that are more responsible.

These incentives, no doubt, will be effective inducements for regular attendance and work which, in turn, will ensure efficient

service. Habitual absenteeism must be treated as misconduct and it must be stated that habitual absentees are liable for disciplinary

action.

Increasing motivation, commitment and engagement levels are key organizational aspects nowadays. The development of

compensation policies has an important role in motivating workforce to deliver high levels of performance, discretionary effort

and contribution. The process of motivation usually starts with someone recognizing an unsatisfied need. Then a goal is

established to be reached and that way to satisfy the need.

Rewards and incentives can be established for people to better accomplish the given goal. The social context will also affect the

motivation level. This context consists of organizational values and culture but it also includes leaderships and management as

well as the influence of the group or team in which a person works.

REFERENCES

1. Allen, S. G. (1981). An empirical model of work attendance. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77-87.

2. Anderson, V. (2009). Research Methods in Human Resource Management. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel

Development.

3. Barmby, T. A., Orme, C. D., & Treble, J. G. (1991). Worker absenteeism: An analysis using microdata. The Economic

Journal, 214-229.

4. Belohlavek, F. (2008). Jak vést a motivovat lidi. Brno: Computer Press.

5. Branham, L. (2005). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave. American Management, New York, 172.

6. Brooke, P. P. (1986). Beyond the Steers and Rhodes model of employee attendance. Academy of Management

Review, 11(2), 345-361.

7. Brooke, P. P., & Price, J. L. (1989). The determinants of employee absenteeism: An empirical test of a causal

model*. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(1), 1-19.

8. Chadwick-Jones, J. J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C. (1982). Social psychology of absenteeism. Praeger Publishers.

9. Crainer, S. (2004). Des Dearlove. Gravy Training: Inside the Business of Business Schools.

10. Daigeler, T. (2008). Vedení lidí v kostce. Praha: Grada Publishing.

11. Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1991). On the extent and reduction of avoidable absenteeism: An assessment of absence

policy provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 810-817.





12. De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member

satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.

13. Drago, R., & Wooden, M. (1992). The determinants of labor absence: Economic factors and workgroup norms across

countries. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 45(4), 764-778.

14. Dunn, L. F., & Youngblood, S. A. (1986). Absenteeism as a mechanism for approaching an optimal labor market

equilibrium: An empirical study. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 668-674.

15. Gangai, K. N. (2014). Absenteeism at workplace: what are the factors influencing to it?. International Journal of

Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives, 3(4), 1282-1289.

16. Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a causal model. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 16(5), 469-485.

17. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11(3), 445–455.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0735-7028.11.3.445

18. Jehn, K. A., Rupert, J., & Nauta, A. (2006). The effects of conflict asymmetry on mediation outcomes: Satisfaction,

work motivation and absenteeism. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(2), 96-109.

19. Jenkins, A. K. (2009). Keeping the talent: Understanding the needs of engineering and scientists in the defense

acquisition workforce. Defense A R Journal, 1(4), 164–170.

20. Katcher, B. L., & Snyder, A. (2007). 30 Reasons Employees Hate Their Managers: What Your People May be

Thinking and what You Can Do about it. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.

21. La Brosse, M. (2010). Burned Up over Burnout?. Retrieved on 02.07.2014 from

http://www.productionmachining.com/columns/burned-up-over-burnout.

22. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

23. Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Group absenteeism and positive affective tone: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 667-687.

24. Mikuláštík, M. (2007). Manažerská psychologie. GRADA Publishing, as.

25. Mintzberg, H. (2006). Le manager au quotidien: Les dix rôles du cadre. Paris: Editions d'Organisation.

26. Nauta, A., & Ybema, J. F. (2003). Evaluatieonderzoek naar het project Introductie van Mediation in het Onderwijs

(IMO). TNO Arbeid, Hoofddorp.

27. Nauta, A., De Bruin, M. R., & Cremer, R. (2004). De mythe doorbroken: Gezondheid en inzetbaarheid oudere

werknemers. Plantijn Casparie, Amsterdam.

28. Niermeyer, R., & Seyffert, M. (2007). Motivation. München: Haufe.

29. Obasan Kehinde, A. (2011). Impact of job satisfaction on absenteeism: A correlative study. European Journal of

Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(1), 25-49.

30. Plaminek, J. (2010). Vzdělávání dospělých. Praha: Grada Publishing.

31. Ramlall, S. (2004) A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within

organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1), 52–63.

32. Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within

organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1), 52–63.

33. Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 668-681.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.11.3.445

http://www.productionmachining.com/columns/burned-up-over-burnout





34. Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (2003). What does unit-level absence mean? Issues for future unit-level absence

research. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 185-202.

35. Ryan, A., Schmit, M. J., & Johnson, R. (1996). Attitudes and effectiveness: Examining relations at an organizational

level. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 853-882.

36. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task

design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.

37. Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.

38. Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal Of Applied

Psychology, 63(4), 391-407.

39. Suler, J. (2008). Image, word, action: Interpersonal dynamics in a photo-sharing community. Cyber Psychology &

Behavior, 11(5), 555-560.

40. Thirulogasundaram, V. P., & Sahu, P. C. (2014). Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism interface in Corporate Sector–A

study. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 19, (3), 64-68.

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

42. Retrieved from

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/211387437_WORK-

UNIT_ABSENTEEISM_EFFECTS_OF_SATISFACTION_COMM...

43. Retrieved from http://www.readbag.com/jyd-in-summer-internship-projects-hr-absenteeism-causes-effects-control-at-

co...

44. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/billbsingh/absenteeism-causes-effects-control-at-control-ksb-pumps-ltdby-p...

45. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/supabuoy/absenteeism-32671378

46. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/7587321/Author_s_Employee_Satisfaction_and_Work_Motivation_Research_in_Prism...

47. Retrieved from http://www.cjournal.cz/files/111.pdf

48. Retrieved from http://www.gurulink.ca/srv.asp?a=_r_resources_talent_absenteeism

49. Retrieved from http://www.benefits.org/optimize/risk-sharing/attendance-management

50. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/10444060610736594

51. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/10444060610736594

52. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2459/2/2459.pdf

53. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/sunilramlall/docs/review_of_employee_motivation_theor/1

54. Retrieved from http://e-journal.um.edu.my/publish/JuPiDi/current

55. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10834-012-9347-7

*****

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/211387437_WORK-UNIT_ABSENTEEISM_EFFECTS_OF_SATISFACTION_COMM...

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/211387437_WORK-UNIT_ABSENTEEISM_EFFECTS_OF_SATISFACTION_COMM...

http://www.readbag.com/jyd-in-summer-internship-projects-hr-absenteeism-causes-effects-control-at-co...

http://www.readbag.com/jyd-in-summer-internship-projects-hr-absenteeism-causes-effects-control-at-co...

http://www.slideshare.net/billbsingh/absenteeism-causes-effects-control-at-control-ksb-pumps-ltdby-p...

http://www.slideshare.net/supabuoy/absenteeism-32671378

http://www.academia.edu/7587321/Author_s_Employee_Satisfaction_and_Work_Motivation_Research_in_Prism...

http://www.cjournal.cz/files/111.pdf

http://www.gurulink.ca/srv.asp?a=_r_resources_talent_absenteeism

http://www.benefits.org/optimize/risk-sharing/attendance-management

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/10444060610736594

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/10444060610736594

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2459/2/2459.pdf

http://issuu.com/sunilramlall/docs/review_of_employee_motivation_theor/1

http://e-journal.um.edu.my/publish/JuPiDi/current

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10834-012-9347-7

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKPLACE MOTIVATION...

Documents

Transcript of RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKPLACE MOTIVATION...