EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION ON ORGANIZATIONAL

PRODUCTIVITY

(A Study of May & Baker Plc, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria)

BY

AJALIE STANLEY NWANNEBUIFE.

15PAB00974

BEING A MASTERS THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT,COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES,
COVENANT UNIVERSITY, OTA.

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE

AWARD OF MASTERS DEGREE (M.Sc) IN BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION

JUNE 2017

i
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this project report is based on a study undertaken by AJALIE STANLEY
NWANNEBUIFE of the Department of Business Management, College of Development Studies
of Covenant University under the supervision of DR., OLALEKE OGUNNAIKE. This project
report has not been elsewhere for the award of any degree. The ideas and views of this research
project are products of the research conducted by me. Where the ideas and views of other
researchers have been expressed, they have been duly acknowledged.

Ajalie Stanley Nwannebuife ……………………

Researcher Signature & Date

ii
 ACCEPTANCE

This is to attest that this dissertation is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of a Masters degree (M.Sc) in Business Administration in the department of Business
Management, College of Business and Social Sciences, Covenant University.

Mr. Phillip John Ainwokhai ………. ………………………

(Secretary, School of Postgraduate Studies) Signature & Date

Professor Samuel Wara ………………………………..

(Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies) Signature & Date

iii
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this research work titled Effects of Employee Motivation on Organizational
Productivity: A study of May & Baker Plc was undertaken by AJALIE STANLEY
NWANNEBUIFE with matriculation number 15PAB00974 under the supervision of Dr.
OGUNNAIKE OLALEKE and submitted to the Department of Business Management of the
College of Development Studies, Covenant University, Ota.

Dr. Olaleke Ogunnaike ………………………

Supervisor Signature and Date

Dr. O. Iyiola
-------------------------- ---------------------------
Head of Department Signature and Date

--------------------------- --------------------------
External Examiner Signature and Date

iv
 DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to God Almighty the Source of all Knowledge, the Author and the
Finisher of my Faith and also to my parents.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I acknowledge God Almighty for his grace and enablement to commence and complete
this exercise, and his direction each and every time. Thank you for your faithfulness in my life
and being a source of inspiration to me.

My sincere appreciation goes to the Chancellor, Dr. David Oyedepo and his beloved wife Pastor
Faith Oyedepo, for diligently pursuing the vision of Covenant University of which I am a
beneficiary of, also to the Vice Chancellor: Professor. AAA Atayero who has also been a source
of inspiration and the Deputy Vice Chancellors: Prof. Shalom Nwodo Chinedu, the Registrar
Mrs. Mary Aboyede, Dean School of Postgraduate Studies: Professor Samuel Wara, Sub Dean
School of Postgraduate Studies: Dr. Humphrey Adebayo, Dean of the College of Business and
Social Science (CBSS), Prof. Francis Iyoha, Head of Department Dr. Oluwole Iyiola, the
Chaplain Pastor Charles Ihekwaba and all other associate chaplains. May the good Lord reward
your efforts.

My appreciation also goes to my amiable Supervisor Dr. Olaleke Ogunnaike for his fatherly
advice, instructions and directions given to me at every phase of this exercise and ensuring that it
was completed at the stipulated time. Many thanks to the entire Academic Staff in the
Department of Business Management, Dr. O. Iyiola, Dr. C. L. Moses, Dr. Adegbuiyi, Dr.
Kehinde, O. J, Dr. Worlu, R. E, Dr. Adeniji, A. A., Dr. Oludayo, O., Dr. Oladimeji, Prof.
Akinnusi, Prof. Oladele and the Administrative Officer of the Department; Dr. Agwu, and those
other lecturers whom I was privileged to have been taught by as a student.

My appreciation also goes to my respondents; the staff of May & Baker Plc. Thanks for your
various responses which led to the success of this programme. I acknowledge the input of my
dear course mates; graduating class of 2017 who have contributed positively to my life and this
project in one way or the other. To my friends: Ayomide Brandon, Harry Odey, Clinton
Ekechukwu, Samuel Mato, Mrs. Vivian Akatugba, Seyi Adesanya, Kemi Onayemi, Oluwaseun
Okesina, Demola Onabote, Ochanya Amuta, Mrs. Funke Adebayo, Mrs. Toyin Adesanya, Mrs.
Bola Adejana, Mr. Joseph Dada and many more thank you for your contributions to my life, you
all made my stay here worthwhile.

vi
I would also like to thank and appreciate the most important people in my life, my parents Mr. &
Mrs. Ajalie, dearly for their support, prayers and encouragement all through my life and through
this programme, ensuring I was never in want. God would forever reward you for the love that
you have lavished on me. To my wonderful siblings Winifred, Christopher and Emmanuel
thanks for your ceaseless encouragement all through this project.

vii
 ABSTRACT

The issue of motivation has continually posed a big challenge to business organizations around
the globe especially in the manufacturing industries where high levels of productivity affect or
play a major role in determining the profitability, growth, development, stability and future
success of an organization. Therefore an organization in a bid to achieve success in maintaining a
competitive edge over its rival as well as avoid a steady decline in the productivity levels of its
employees, must ensure members of the workforce are adequately motivated. The primary
purpose of this study is to examine the effect of employee motivation on organizational
productivity. This study adopted a descriptive and causal research design as well as the survey
method in investigating the effects of motivation on organizational productivity levels. The
entire population of the study was 475 as a result the sample size determined is 217. A well-
structured self-administered questionnaire was used as the main tool for data collection and was
administered to 217 respondents out of which 185 were retrieved and appropriately filled.
Reliability of the research instrument was calculated and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
0.868. Data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. From the hypotheses tested, the
result indicated that there is a significant relationship between employee motivation and
organizational productivity. Findings also revealed that 35.8% of the variations in productivity
can be explained by employee motivation in the organization used as a study in this research.
The results also revealed that extrinsic factors were considered to have more significant effects
on organizational productivity than intrinsic factors. The study concluded that although both
intrinsic and extrinsic factors are significant predictors of productivity, extrinsic factors appear to
be more significant or valued by respondents in the organization used as a study. Furthermore
this study also recommended that management of organizations should take appropriate
measures in figuring out those factors that motivate their employees and seek ways of ensuring
that they are adequately motivated in order to improve their performance and productivity levels.
Finally the study also suggested that future studies should focus on other industries apart from
the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector.
KEYWORDS: Motivation, Productivity, Organization, Employees.

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A
Cover Page
Title page………………………...……………………………………………………………….…….….i
Declaration …….……………………………………………………………………………………….…ii
Acceptance……………………………………………………………………………………………..…iii
Certification …….……………………………………………………………………………………..…iv
Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………………...….v
Acknowledgement…………..…………………………………………………………………………....vi
Abstract………………………………...……………………………………………………….….…....viii
Table of contents….....................................................................................................................................ix
List of tables…………………………………………………….……………………………………….xii
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………...…xiii

PART B
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study………………...….…………………………………….…………….…1
1.2 Statement of research problem……………………………………………………………….…....2
1.3 Objectives of the study.....................................................................................................................3
1.4 Research questions………………………………..………………………………….……………4
1.5 Research hypothesis..................................................................................................................…...4
1.6 Significance of the study……………………………………………….………………….………5
1.7 Scope of the study………………………………………………………………………...….……6
1.8 Limitations of the study............................................................................................................…...6
1.9 Outline of chapters……………………………………………………………………...…………7
1.10 Operationalization of research variables …………………………………………………….……8
1.11 Schematic model of the study ………………………………………………………………….....9
1.12 Definition of terms……………………………………………………………………….............10

ix
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....11
2.1 Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………………..……11
2.1.1 Motivation………………………………………………………………………..………………11
2.1.2 Types of Motivation……………………………………………………...………………………13
2.1.3 Intrinsic Motivational Factors……………………………………………………………………14
2.1.3.1 Employee Well-being……………………………………………………………………………14
2.1.3.2 Relationship with Co-workers……………………………………………………...……………16
2.1.3.3 Relationship with Managers………………………………………………………………..……17
2.1.4 Extrinsic Motivational Factors……………………………………………...……………………19
2.1.4.1 Work Environment…………………………………………………...…………………………19
2.1.4.2 Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………20
2.1.4.3 Training and Career Development……………………………………………….………………22
2.1.5 Factors Affecting Motivation…………………………………………………….………………24
2.1.6 Dilemma Managers Face in Motivating Employees………………………..……………………25
2.1.7 Productivity…………………………………………………………...……….…………………27
2.1.7.1 Employee Productivity………………………………………...…………………………………27
2.1.7.2 Effectiveness……………………………………………………………..………………………28
2.1.7.3 Efficiency……………………………………………………………………………...…………29
2.1.8 The Nexus between Motivation and Productivity……………………………….………………29
2.2 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………..……………30
2.2.1 Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need’s Theory……………………………………….……….31
2.2.2 Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory…………………………………………………….…37
2.2.3 Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory……………………………………………..………………41
2.3 Empirical Framework……………………………………………………………………………47
2.4 Gaps in Literature…………………………………………………………………………….….50
2.5 Summary of the chapter………………………………………………………………………….50

x
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
3.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....53
3.1 Research Design………..…………...……………………………………………………….…...53
3.2 Population of study………………………………………...………..………………...………....53
3.3 Sample frame ………………….………….………………………...………………….…….….54
3.4 Determination of sample size ………………………………………………......………………..54
3.5 Sampling technique………………………………………………………………………………54
3.6 Types and Sources of data collection …...…………………………………………….....………55
3.7 Instrument for data collection…...………………….….……………………………..………….55
3.8 Validity of research instrument ….…………………………….……...…………………...…….55
3.9 Reliability of research instrument …………………..…….……………………….……….……56
3.10 Method of Data Analysis ……………..………...…………...…...……………………………...57
3.11 Ethical Considerations ……………..………...………...…………………………………...…...57

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0 Introduction……………………..………………………..……………………………...……….58
4.1 General response rate ….……………………...…………….…….………………….………….58
4.2 Socio demographic profile of respondents ………………..……………………………..……...59
4.3 Descriptive analysis of data on relevant variables ……………..…..……………………………61
4.4 Test of hypothesis ………………..……………………………………………………………...77

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

5.0 Introduction………………………………………….……………….……………………...…...89
5.1 Discussion of Findings …....………………………….………….………………..………….….89
5.1.1 Theoretical Findings.…………………………………………….………………..………….….89
5.1.2 Empirical Findings……...…………………………………………….………...………………..90
5.1.3 Discussion of findings (objectives) ……...……………………..…………...……….…………..91

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 Introduction…………………………………………..………………………………….……….96

xi
6.1 Summary of Research Work………………….…….……………………………………………96
6.2 Conclusion …………………..………………………………………………….…………...…..97
6.3 Recommendation …………………………………………………..……………..……………..98
6.4 Limitation of Studies……………….…………………………..………………..…………….....99
6.5 Suggestion for Further Studies……………….…………………..…………………………......100
6.6 Contribution to knowledge.…………………………..…………………………………….......100
References…….…………………………………………………………...............................................102

PART C: APPENDICES
APPENDIX I……………………………………………………………………………..…………….120
APPENDIX II………………………………………………………………..…………………………121

LIST OF TABLES
3.9.1 Table on reliability statistics…………………………………………………………………….57
4.1 Table on general response rate……………...………...…………………………...…………….58
4.2.1 Table on gender of respondents……………...………...……………………………..………….59
4.2.2 Table on age group of the respondents……………………………..…………………………....59
4.2.3 Table on academic qualifications ………...……………………………………………………...60
4.2.4 Table on marital status of the respondents……………………..…..…..……..……………...…..60
4.2.5 Table on job status ……….…………………………..............................................................….61
4.3.1 Table on employee well-being..…………………..……………………………………………...62
4.3.2 Table on relationship with co-workers………………………………………………………….64
4.3.3 Table on relationship with managers…………………………………………..…………….…..66
4.3.4 Table on work environment ……………………………………………….………………..…...68
4.3.5 Table on compensation…………………….………………………………………….…..……..70
4.3.6 Table on training and career development………………………………………...……………..72
4.3.7 Table on effectiveness……………………………………………………………………..……..74
4.3.8 Table on efficiency …...……………………..……………………..……………………………76
4.4.1a: Table on model summary hypothesis 1…..……………………………………...……………....78

xii
4.4.1b Table on anova hypothesis 1….....................................................................................………….78
4.4.1c Table on coefficient hypothesis 1…………………………………………………..……………79
4.4.2a Table on model summary hypothesis 2…………………..…………………………………….. 80
4.4.2b Table on anova hypothesis 2 …..…………………………………………………………...…....80
4.4.2c Table on coefficient hypothesis 2 ………..………………………………………………....…...81
4.4.3a Table on model summary hypothesis 3……………………………………………………….....82
4.4.3b Table on anova hypothesis 3 ………………………………….…………………………………82
4.4.3c Table on coefficient hypothesis 3 …………………………………………………………….....83
4.4.4a: Table on model summary hypothesis 4 ...………………………………………………….……84
4.4.4b Table on anova hypothesis 4 …………………………………………………………………….84
4.4.4c Table on coefficient hypothesis 4………..………………………………………...……....….....85
4.4.5a Table on model summary hypothesis 5………………………………………………..…….......86
4.4.5b Table on anova hypothesis 5 ………………………………………………………………..……86
4.4.5c Table on coefficient hypothesis 5……………………………………….…………………….....87

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1 Schematic model of the study………………………………………………………………..……9
Fig 2 Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory model…………………………………………...32
Fig 3 Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory model………………………………………………..…38
Fig 5 Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory model……………………………………………………….42
Fig 6 Schematic model of the study (Hypotheses)……………………………………………….…...101

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Generally most businesses, organizations and their managers are faced with numerous challenges.
One of such challenges is in the area of management which refers to the utilization of resources
effectively and efficiently in order to achieve an organizations goals and objectives. Some of these
managerial challenges are obvious in matters concerning employees such as reimbursement,
recruitment, performance management, training and career development, health and safety,
benefits, motivation and administration amongst others. The human resource is the most vital of
all resources among other factors of production and the human capital is what distinguishes one
organization from the other (Maimuna & Rashad, 2013). Therefore, for organizations to survive
and remain relevant and competitive, it is essential for them to be able to entice and maintain
efficient and effective employees in a bid to enhance productivity (Sunia, 2014). This study
however is centered on the aspect of motivation and focuses on the effects of employee motivation
on organizational productivity.

Hellriegel (1996) viewed motivation as any influence that portray, direct, or maintain people’s
goal directed behaviors. It refers to the driving force that makes an individual to act in a specific
way. It is an inner drive that causes an individual to behave in a certain manner. The goal of most
organizations is to improve productivity therefore factors of motivation play significant roles in
improving employee job satisfaction levels. This will in turn aid in improving an organization’s
productivity levels.

Employees make up the workforce of any organization as such they are an integral part of the
organization. Aluko (2014), stated that an organization is only as good as the workforce that runs
the organization. This is to say that when employees are motivated chances are that their morale
would be high as such performance and productivity levels would increase thereby to a large extent
boosting overall organizational performance level. In order to achieve high levels of productivity
as such boost organizational performance or productivity, managers therefore need to continually
seek ways of ensuring that their employees stay motivated. This is because a lack of employee

1
motivation leads to reduced productivity which is harmful to organizational performance and
continuous success.

Jennifer and George (2006) defined employee productivity as the level of effort put forth by the
workforce of an organization towards achieving organizational goals and objectives. There are
several ways by which a workforce can be motivated so as to enhance organizational productivity.
George and Jones (2012) states that motivation can be categorized into two classes namely intrinsic
and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation arises from an employee’s internal cravings to execute a task
out of self-interest rather than a need or wish for some external reward. External motivation is the
type of motivation that arises when an employee is compelled to act in a specific way either as a
result of that employee’s desires for external rewards or to avoid punishment.

Extrinsic motivation also helps boost an employee’s effectiveness and efficiency levels. This is
because certain external factors such as adequate compensation, work environment as well as
training and career development appeal to employees as such are essential in inspiring them to
resourcefully and successfully discharge their duties. An organization that fails to provide a
conducive work environment, compensate its workforce adequately, create room for proper
training and career advancement is at risk of having a demotivated workforce. This means that
such a workforce being demoralized would fail to effectively and efficiently discharge their duties
leading to low performance and productivity levels (Nwachukwu, 2004). This study therefore
focuses on showing the effects of motivation on organizational productivity.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

James (2014) cited three warning signs of a demotivated workforce these include poor workplace
atmosphere, slipping job standards and decreased productivity. He further stated that if any of
these factors is observed to be trending downwards then there is a great chance that the
organization is dealing with a demotivated workforce. Most businesses and organizations
especially manufacturing industries have failed to recognize the importance of motivation as a
concept be it intrinsic such as employee well-being, relationship with co-workers, relationship with
managers, organizational policies etc. or extrinsic such as training and career development, good
working conditions, compensation, promotion amongst other factors that enhance or improve
employee performance as well as organizational productivity levels.

2
This in turn has continued to represent major managerial concerns for decades as employee
productivity levels has relatively declined which has been acknowledged as a subject of growing
concern in the aspect of business and management research (Akerele, 2001). Although a lot of
factors may also be responsible or even cause a decline in productivity such as poor strategic and
structural changes in decisions and executions, lack of infrastructure, leadership styles and
organizational culture amongst others. Contemporary investigations that connects the concept of
workforce motivation and productivity has laid an emphasis on employee perspective, needs and
expectations as factors affecting their performance and productivity levels respectively. As such
investigating those factors of importance to employees in the discharge of their duties at work has
taken a new dimension.

Motivation through factors such as employee wellbeing, adequate compensation, promotion, good
relationships with co-workers and relationships with managers can enhance an employee’s level
of effectiveness and efficiency in the workplace. This is because good relationships with co-
workers promote unity and gives the employee a sense of belonging and acceptance which in turn
boosts employee performance and productivity levels. Employees who enjoy such relationships
both within and outside the work environment tend to be more effective and efficient as such very
productive in discharging their duties. Therefore organizations should promote harmony amongst
employees by organizing social functions in a bid to bring employees together (Jibowo, 2007).

Therefore an organization’s best strategy is to provide suitable work environs that allow their
workforce to meet or exceed expectations as well as offer a range of motivators to improve
enthusiasm, performance and productivity levels.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The primary objective of this study is to acquire a deeper comprehension of how employee
motivation affect performance of workers in manufacturing organizations as well as recognize the
effects on organizational productivity. This research therefore seeks to:

i. Determine the effect of employee well-being on the level of effectiveness of the workers.
ii. Determine the effect of employee relationship with managers on the level of efficiency of
the workers.
iii. Examine the effect of compensation on the level of effectiveness of the workers.

3
 iv. Examine the effect of training and career development on the level of efficiency of the
workers.
v. Determine the influence of employee motivation on organizational productivity.
1.4 Research Questions
i. What effect does employee well-being have on the level of effectiveness of workers?
ii. How does employee relationship with managers affect the level of efficiency of the
workers?
iii. What effect does compensation have on the level of effectiveness of the worker?
iv. How does training and career development affect the level of efficiency of a worker?
v. What influence does employee motivation have on organizational productivity?
1.5 Research Hypotheses
i. Employee well-being has no significant effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker
ii. Employee relationship with managers have no significant effect on the level of efficiency
of the worker
iii. Compensation has no significant effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker
iv. Training and career development has no significant effect on the level of efficiency of the
worker
v. Employee motivation does not influence organizational productivity

1.6 Significance of the Study

For this study not to be an effort in futility, it has to be useful to a number of people and institutions
among which are;

i. Organizations: The aim of this study is that the outcomes, results or findings should be
beneficial to business owners, managers and organizations especially in the locality where
this study is being conducted. This is to enable them understand the concept of motivation
and its effect on productivity. It also gives an insight to managers and business owners on
the importance of knowing their employees and ensuring adequate motivation in their
organizations.

4
 ii. Research Institutions: This study is also relevant to research bodies and institutions in
the nation as a whole because findings would also be relevant to students and users of
information in conducting further research in areas similar to this study.
iii. Government Agencies: This research is also of paramount importance because it would
aid government agencies in making and implementing policies that would enhance the
stability, growth and development of businesses throughout the region in matters
concerning organizational productivity by seeking ways ensure that employees are
adequately motivated in their various organizations thereby increasing overall productivity
and performance levels.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is limited to a selected pharmaceutical manufacturing organization (May
& Baker Plc) in Ota, Ado-Odo Local Government Area in Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria where the
study is being conducted. This study examines employee motivation and its resulting effects on
the organization’s productivity levels. The pharmaceutical industry is being considered because
research has not been done on this area prior to now. May & Baker Plc was selected because it is
the first pharmaceutical company in Nigeria and is one of the fastest growing pharmaceutical
companies currently situated in Lagos and Ogun state.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The demanding schedule of respondents at work made it very difficult getting the respondents to
participate in the survey. As a result, retrieving copies of questionnaire in timely fashion was very
challenging. Also, the researcher is a postgraduate (student) and therefore has limited time as well
as resources in covering extensive literature available in conducting this research. Information
provided by the researcher may not hold true for all businesses or organizations but is restricted to
the selected organization used as a study in this research especially in Ota the locality where this
study is being conducted. Finally, the researcher is restricted only to the evidence provided by the
participants in the research and therefore cannot determine the reliability and accuracy of the
information provided.

5
1.9 Operationalization of Research Variables

This study consists of two variables, employee motivation and organizational productivity, being
the independent and dependent variables respectively. The relationship between the two
variables can be mathematically represented as follows:

Y=f(X)

Where:

Y= dependent variable = Organizational Productivity

f= Function

X = Independent variable = Employee Motivation (Intrinsic and Extrinsic)

X= Employee Motivation

Intrinsic

X1= Employee Well-being

X2= Employee Relationship with Co-workers

X3= Employee Relationship with Managers

Extrinsic

X4= Training and Career Development

X5= Compensation

X6= Work Environment

Y= Organizational Productivity

Y1= Effectiveness

Y2= Efficiency

6
1.10 Schematic Model of the Study

Source: Adopted from Estes & Polnick (2012)

Figure 1: Schematic Model of the Study

The above diagram represents the schematic model of the study illustrating both the independent
and dependent variables used in the study; where H represents the various hypotheses tested in
the course of this study.

7
1.11 Definition of Terms

Motivation: refers to what stimulates and guides human behaviors and how these behaviors are
sustained to attain a specific goal.

Employees: Employees are people who are hired working under contract in an organization, they
are referred to as the workforce of an organization.

Productivity: A summary measure of the quantity and quality of work performance, with
resource deployment taken into account. It can be measured at individual, group or organizational
levels.

Employee Productivity: is the rate at which employees effectively and efficiently discharge
their duties.

Organizational Productivity: A measure of how efficiently and effectively managers use

resources to achieve organizational goals.

Effectiveness: refers to a measure of how well workers productivity levels meet set goals and
objectives of the organization.

Employee Effectiveness: is a qualitative characteristic that indicates the extent to which job
related issues are addressed and the magnitude at which predetermined goals and objectives are
achieved by an employee.

Efficiency: can be derived from the relationship between inputs and outputs, and refers
principally to the degree at which outputs are realized while minimizing costs associated with
production.

Employee Efficiency: refers to the ability of an employee to do what is actually produced or

performed with the same consumption of resources

8
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter shall extensively examine literatures that are associated and significant to the subject
of this study. The review covers the concepts, empirical and theoretical explanations required to
facilitate a complete examination and comprehension of the research. It provides an insight of
other people’s thoughts and opinions on the effects of motivation on employees and how it affects
their productivity levels.

2.1 Conceptual Framework

2.1.1 Motivation

What is Motivation? James and Stoner (2009) Suggested that motivation can be seen as those
psychological characteristics of humans that contribute to an individual’s level of commitment
towards a goal. It comprises several elements that causes, directs, and sustains an individual’s
behavior in a specific way. He went further to say that motivation is one of a number of elements
that affect an organization’s productivity and performance levels respectively.

Jennifer and George (2006) defined motivation as a mental force that governs the direction of an
individual’s behavior in an organization, an individual’s level of effort, and an individual’s level
of determination when faced with obstacles. In addition she stated that even with appropriate
strategies and administrative structures in place, an organization can only be productive if its
employees are sufficiently motivated to perform at higher levels.

Hellriegel (1996) viewed motivation as any impact that brings out, guides, or sustains a person’s
goal-directed behaviors. Ivancevich (1994) Suggested that motivation refers to those set of forces
that triggers certain behaviors and regulates its form, course, intensity and duration. Obikeze
(2005) viewed motivation as the process of guiding an employee’s actions towards a particular
end via the manipulation of rewards.

Kreitner (1995) described motivation as the mental process giving behaviors the will-power, drive,
and tendency to act in a certain way in order to attain certain unsatisfied needs. Young (2000) also

9
suggested that motivation could be defined in relation to forces within employees that justifies the
levels, directions, and resolution as regards efforts they expend in the workplace. George and Jones
(2012) termed work motivation as self- induced forces that control the directions and behavioral
patterns of the workforce in an organization taking into account their levels of commitment and
enthusiasm towards the successful accomplishment of set goals.

Berelson and Staines (2003) opined that motivation is an inner state that inspires actions as well
as direct and channel behavior towards a goal. Guay, Chanal, Ratelle, Marsh, Larose & Boivin
(2010) argued that motivation deals with “the motives underlying behaviors”. In addition,
(Broussard & Garrison, 2004) defined motivation simply as “those elements that pushes an
individual to act or not to act”.

Beach (2005) described motivation as the individual’s readiness to expend energy so as to

accomplish set goals. He is of the opinion that motivation relates to a person’s enthusiasm for
specific patterns or behaviors. Also he further stated that the ambitions, needs and wants of a
person may influence, direct and control their attitude. Davies (2005) suggested that the concept
of motivation entails what goes on inside a person that results certain behaviors. As regards
organizations, he stresses that an absence of motivation is reason enough for a worker not to attain
gratification from the work.

Agbeto (2002) also stated that motivation is anything that moves an individual towards a specific
goal. Furthermore Koontz (2008) argued that motivation as a term is applicable to the drive,
yearnings, needs and wishes of a person. From the above definitions it can be said that motivation
as a whole, is more or less fundamentally concerned with those forces or elements that triggers
certain human actions or behaviors. It can also be deduced that creating a work place environment
in which adequate motivation is sustained has a positive impact on employee performance. This is
because employee motivation is the core of the field of an organization’s behavior and a high level
of motivation encourages employees to be highly productive and perform better at their jobs.
However creating such an environment still poses a challenge to managers and organizations as a
whole. This problem may be based on the fact that an organization’s productivity levels increase
as the level of employee motivation rises.

10
2.1.2 Types of Motivation

Lin (2007) proposed that motivation can either be intrinsic or extrinsic. In the workplace as well
as other settings, motivation is often classified as being naturally extrinsic or intrinsic (Martocchio,
2006). Lin, 2007; Ryan & Deci (2000) also identified several classes of motivation namely;
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation: can be referred to as motivation derived from within the individual or from
the activity itself, it can be said to have an affirmative outcome on the conduct, performance and
well-being of an individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

In the workplace, it springs from impulses that are characteristic of the work itself .It is what
workers derive because of their success in completing a task. Such Intrinsically motivated rewards
comprises the chance to showcase expertise and abilities, receive gratitude, good recognition,
freedom, responsibility and mutual respect. A worker that is inherently inspired, according to
George and Jones (2012) would be devoted to his job for as long as he believes the job is able to
satisfy his wants. Intrinsically driven work conduct are behaviors performed for one’s own sake,
that is, the inspiration to work emanates from within the individual. Here the worker is motivated
because he derives happiness in doing the job.

For instance, a domestic worker in an organization whose pay is quite low compared to other
workers cleans the surroundings every time and even put in extra hours to clean not because of an
increase in pay but because of the happiness derived in doing it. Such a motivation originates from
rewards that are considered inherent to a job or activity itself such as the pleasure an individual
derives from a game of chess or the love of playing soccer. Therefore when an individual engages
in activities without any apparent inducements with the exception of the activity itself such an
individual is said to be motivated intrinsically.

On the other hand extrinsic motivated behaviors are those that are external to the activity or the
work, such as compensation, conditions of work, welfares, safety, and elevation etc. these
motivators are usually determined by the company the individual works for. Extrinsic behaviors
require workers to work hard or put in extra hours so as to get the reward that comes with it.
Workers may not like the task but are inspired by the additional benefits, awards etc. It is a behavior
that is put up to obtain substantial or social rewards and to evade chastisement. For instance, a

11
receiver in a guesthouse is aware that working hard and diligently would bring about additional
benefits and even promotion may not be happy putting in extra hours but the incentive forces
him/her to work harder. George and Jones (2012) an extrinsically inspired individual will be
dedicated for as long as external rewards are available.

For example, good pay has been perceived over time to be an effective strategy businesses utilize
to motivate their workforce to perform thereby improving organizational performance. Also, most
employers of labor have understood the point that for businesses to contend well in a business
setting, the performance of their workforce is very essential and crucial in influencing the result in
terms of the success of the business. Hence, it can be presumed that the performance of a workforce
is not only key to the progress, solidity and enlargement of the business alone but also for personal
advancement of the workforce as a whole.

Motivation that is considered extrinsic stems from outside of the performer. Money can be said to
be the greatest example, nevertheless coercion and the fear of punishment are also common
extrinsic motivations. In various organizations, Competition is seen as extrinsic since it encourages
the performers to win and outwit their rivals, rather than appreciate the intrinsic rewards associated
with the activity. However it is also imperative to note that extrinsic rewards may result in over
justification and a later a decrease in intrinsic motivation.

The universal difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is that whereas intrinsic
motivation is triggered by internal forces or those within oneself, extrinsic motivation is
determined by external forces (Giancola, 2014).

2.1.3 Intrinsic Motivational Factors

Although there are various forms of intrinsic motivation, this study focuses on an employee’s
wellbeing, employee’s relationship with co-workers as well as their managers as factors that may
influence an employee’s productivity levels in an organization. Intrinsic motivation, derived from
within an individual or from the nature of the work itself, positively influences behavior, wellbeing
and productivity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These factors are discussed below;

12
2.1.3.1Employee Well-being

The concept of employee’s well-being in most organizations has become a thing of great interest
in recent years. In today’s world, the increasing reliance on overall market forces places a
considerable load on salary earners and those of working age as regards delivery of goods and
services. Consequently this has adversely affected the health, safety and general wellbeing of the
workforce. Therefore the well-being of a workforce cannot be underestimated as workers also have
similar needs be it physical or emotional. These needs may vary ranging from welfare, security,
health and a sense that they are capable of coping with life. Employees now look to their
organizations for assistance in achieving this because a significant amount of their time and lives
are expended at work. Most business establishments around the globe understand the necessity for
a healthy workforce as they are crucial in enhancing an organization’s productivity levels and
fiscal performance. As such, most organizations take giant strides in a bid to improve the welfare
of their workforces by implementing several health and productivity programs that is aimed at
promoting the well-being of their workforce.

Well-being is defined as a concept that encompasses physical, financial and psychological health,
as well as a personal connection and a sense of belonging and not just the absence of an ailment
or injury. It is an extensive ideology that takes cognizance of the individual as a whole as regards
the physical and mental states of a person (Lu, Cooper & Lin, 2013).

Finally, for health and well-being programs to be successful an organization must be able to relate
effectively with their workforce and ensure that matters of great concern that may be termed
personal to staff and their relations are catered for. Some of these matters may include their welfare
packages, health-related behaviors, present and eventual monetary state of affairs as well as their
experiences in the place of work. It is imperative to note that the attitude of a workforce provides
several clues on how to obtain the best returns on health and productivity investments. Baase
(2009) stated that there are proofs showing that the health and wellbeing of an organization’s labor
force is inseparably associated with their levels of productivity as well as the health of the nation’s
economy. As such employers of labour are also very much aware of the importance of wellbeing
programs and are concerned with seeking out better ways to improve employee wellbeing through
various health protection and promotion benefit programs.

13
Most organizations even allow staff to take several days off due to illness without being deprived
of their pay. Some even compensate members of their work force for not taking sick leave by
giving them additional pay (Mathis, 2003). Shellengarger (2001), also agreed that managers give
their workers paid time off, free lunch and relaxation times, vacations, leave etc. This is done with
a view to ensure that workers stay healthy and motivated thereby increasing their levels of
effectiveness and efficiency in the workplace resulting in high productivity.

2.1.3.2Relationship with Co-workers

An employee’s relationship with co-workers describes the associations that exist between workers
of equal levels on the hierarchy in an organization without any form of authority over one another.
Workers who enjoy great support from their co-workers are highly industrious and find their
workplace friendly. Cummins (2010) stated that employees who have a decent affiliation with their
fellow workers are usually prosperous and very productive in the workplace even when their jobs
are very stressful. This means that a co-worker’s support is very essential in minimizing stress.
Mayo, Sanchez, Pastor and Rodriguez (2012) as well agreed that co-worker support is vital in
aiding productivity in the workplace. Although, the relationship that exists among co-workers as
well as managers in relation to support has seldom been considered, the kind of relationships a
worker has in terms of support from his co-workers has a very strong influence on his performance
and productivity levels (Schaubroeck, Cotton & Jennings, 2005).

A rational explanation of relations that exist amongst workers be it friendly or strictly professional
has an impression on the level of effectiveness and efficiency of a worker which are elements of
productivity. For instance workers who enjoy support from fellow workers also have personal
relationships outside of work and bond more with their co-workers tend to appreciate the
workplace and hence perform exceedingly well and are highly productive in their work as opposed
to those with lesser support. Employees have a sense of belonging when they can comfortably
request assistance from colleagues in the completion of certain jobs, which promotes unity
(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).

Good relationships with co-workers is very effective in minimizing job stress and promoting
harmony amongst the staff of an organization. This can be achieved through organized social
functions aimed at promoting the bond between members of the workforce. Existence of effective
relationships between employees and colleagues also ensures job satisfaction (Altinoz et.al, 2012).
14
Such relationships with co-workers create room for flexibility in work scheduling, division of
workload among others. Co-worker interactions play a huge part in determining the conduct of
workers as regards productivity levels on the job. When workers are pleased, it is generally due
to the fact that they are contented with their jobs. This is also reflected in the quality of their work.
Workers who derive pleasure in working with fellow workers are motivated beyond personal
factors and are often engaged with their jobs (Robbins 2004).

Consequently workers who relate well and enjoy working with their colleagues particularly when
engaged in team work are highly productive. Such workers tend to be more devoted and motivated
as opposed to their equals who lack such relationships with their co-workers. That is to say they
operate more effectively and efficiently with the success of the organization in mind (Hoobler &
Brass, 2006).

2.1.3.3Relationship with Managers

A worker’s relationship with his/her manager describes the level of relations that exist between
workers and their superiors i.e. managers, supervisors or bosses at the various levels on the
hierarchical structure in an organization even when managers have the capacity or possess a certain
level of power over them. Workers who enjoy great support from their managers are diligent and
find their workplace friendly. As employees are the pillars of the organization, managers must
ensure that they have a cordial relationship with their workers based on trust and mutual respect if
they are to achieve high productivity levels from them. Therefore managers are to ensure that a
deliberate and well-structured initiatives are utilized by their organizations to build foundations
for solid relationships with their workforce (Rai, 2013).

Businesses and managers have a duty to cater for the needs of their workforce and this can be
achieved by ensuring that employees are involved in decision making processes, receive feedback
in terms of criticism as well as credit for their conduct and performances as well as enjoy personal
or friendly relationships rather than strictly professional relationships with their managers (Sinha
& Bajaj, 2013). Sustaining decent relationships with members of an organization’s workforce is
paramount and an effective way to closely monitor, evaluate and control the productivity gaps of
the workforce. It also boosts the individual effectiveness, efficiency and productivity levels of
workers because when managers take the time to build and improve relations as well as guide
workers in their various roles, they will in turn produce more quality work. Only via such decent
15
relations as well as a strong sensitivity in management can a unified entity be built (Chapman &
Goodwin, 2001).

Certainly, in large establishments, staying connected with a huge amount of workers can prove to
be an intimidating task. It may be true that members of a workforce have personal relations with
their immediate bosses, however that doesn’t always give the workers an assurance that their
organizations care for them as individuals, therefore the kind of relationships employees share with
their managers really matters as having a faithful and dedicated workforce can be very vital to an
organization as having a loyal customer base (Gillenson & Sanders, 2005).

Furthermore, it is appropriate for all organizations to have a suitable and effective employee
relationship management as this promotes the personal employee interactions with fellow workers
and their managers. Mutually respectable relations amongst staff has a positive effect on the
success of the organization. Vineet, Sinha and Bajaj (2013) stated that Good relationships with
managers helps in promoting commitment, high morale and confidence in the organization. It lays
emphasis on performance, stability, growth and advancement of employees for improving an
organization’s competitive edge. It instils a sense of belonging and harmony amongst employees
while creating room for the development of shared responsibilities which increases the confidence,
determination, performance, productivity of workers. This in turn enables as well as encourage
them to improve organizational productivity. In addition, it reduces organizational conflict,
promotes trust and understanding amongst workers. It is significant as it supports and fosters good
manager-employee relations, it lessens organizational conflict at both individual levels and group
levels and helps to build trust amongst coworkers and mangers.

Also in present-day circumstances where the value of respect and trust are gradually diminishing,
healthy relationships with managers or supervisors helps in securing the highest possible form of
mutual respect and understanding amongst staff. It offers motivational inducements and aids to
workers while improving the quality of work-life balance and minimizing stress. It does not only
inspire higher levels of performance on the part of the members of the workforce but also on the
organizational productivity levels as a whole. Other recognized favorable effects in most
organizations according to Wargborn (2008) comprises: increased productivity, inspires
innovation, cuts employment and training expenses and helps in managing resources creatively.

16
Workers ought to know what is required of them, not only in terms of their obligations and duties
but also in standards of performance.

Spector (2008), posited that an employee’s relationship with his manager is also a basis for
satisfaction Employees value relationship with their managers as the most important aspect of
relationship with management (SHRM, 2014). When relationship with managers are cordial, with
the manager being understanding, communicating effectively and providing frequent feedback
when necessary, giving much attention to staff, wellbeing and personal issues, the employee’s
productivity levels is likely to be higher (Lumley, Coetzee, Tladinyane & Ferreira, 2011).

In conclusion, Good employee-manager relations contributes meaningfully to the progress of the

organization and aids in creating a world class organization. Failure to build such relationships in
any organization will have an adverse effect on members of the workforce which may lead to
productivity gaps (Vineet et.al, 2013).

2.1.4 Extrinsic Motivational Factors

Also there are various forms of extrinsic motivation, this study focuses on an employee’s work
environment, compensation as well as training and career development as factors that may
influence an employee’s productivity levels in an organization. Extrinsic motivation, derived from
outside the person or from those things that are external to the work or activity itself, positively
influences behavior, performance and productivity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The above mentioned
factors are discussed below;

2.1.4.1 Work Environment

Most businesses limit the rate at which they enhance the productivity levels of their workforce to
skill acquisition. The kind of work place or environs where a worker operates also affects the level
at which such an organization may flourish. Akinyele (2010) suggested that about 80% of
productivity concerns are as a result of the nature of a worker’s environment in most organizations.

A favorable work setting guarantees the well-being of workers which invariably will encourage
them to apply themselves to their responsibilities with a high level of morale which may transform
into higher productivity (Akinyele, 2007).

17
Businesses are prone to risks and uncertainties as such the capacity of an organization to react
effectively to the challenges posed by present-day dynamic nature of economic conditions will to
a large extent be determined by how well an organization can effectively and efficiently use the
human capital at its disposal.

Brenner (2004) affirmed that the capability of an organization’s workforce to share information
throughout the system is subject to the state of their work environment. Workers are likely to be
more productive in a well-structured work environment. Furthermore, the quality of comfort which
varies in terms of the work environment also predicts the degree of contentment as well as
productivity level of workforces. This is because the productivity levels of the workforce would
not be optimal, if the state of their work environments are not conducive. Better work environments
augments worker’s productivity. Kohun (1992), described an organization’s work environment as
an entirety. That is, it encompasses all forces, activities including other significant elements that
are presently or potentially challenging the worker’s productivity and performance levels. It is the
summation of the interrelationship existing between workers and the surroundings in which they
operate. However, in toxic environments, responsible and talented workers can be transformed
into irrational and unreliable workers as a coping strategy (Kyko, 2005). He cited several elements
that constitute a toxic work environment therefore causing a decrease in productivity of employees
and the organization as a whole. These elements are lack of transparency in management, biased
managers, administrative policies, work conditions, interpersonal affiliations and compensation.
Yesufu (2000) claimed that the kind of conditions workers are subjected to physically in the work
place is significant to output. Managing and sustaining a work environment effectively demands
making sure the surroundings are conducive, attractive, acceptable, resourceful, and motivating to
the workforce thereby giving workers a sense of pride and purpose in the jobs they perform
(Brenner, 2004).

2.1.4.2Compensation

Compensation refers to the amount of money and benefits that an employee receives from his
organization in return for his or her contributions to the organization (Hamidi, Saberi & Safari,
2014). This practically satisfies material, social and psychological needs of the individual (Altinoz,
Cakiroglu & Cop, 2012). Compensation or pay is linked with general satisfaction and more closely
linked with pay satisfaction (Lumley et.al, 2011).

18
Employees receive different kinds of benefits in the form of wages, salaries and pay. Mostly
individuals with good education, relevant skills and experience are unsatisfied with their job and
salary packages resulting in high rates of turnover and low productivity. As such organizations
make compensation plans for them in a bid to minimize the turnover and to motivate them. In other
words you can say that compensation motivates employee for better performance and higher
productivity levels. Compensation may also come in the form of Fringe benefits which focuses on
maintaining the quality in terms of lifestyle as workers, provide them with a certain level of safety
and financial security taking into consideration their family relations. Some common examples
are; retirement or pension plans, medical insurance, education reimbursement and time off. Fringe
benefits are forms of indirect compensation provided for a worker or group of workers as a result
of their status as members of the organization (Matthias and Jackson, 2003).

Also overtime is the payment over and above the normal salary and wage rates where the workers
are paid extra for working additional hours (Tyson, 1999). Furthermore, Company housing or
house rent allowances is offered by organizations who feel obliged to help an individual meet one
of the basic needs a roof over one’s head in order to enable them have access to reasonable
accommodation while on official duty. Senior employees are provided with accommodation which
may be owned by the organization while other organizations reimburse rent payments (Andrews,
2009). In order to avoid a decline in employee productivity levels, workers also require health and
safety packages, job security and adequate working conditions (Hamidi et.al, 2014).

According to Allis and Ryan (2008), the cost of compensating workers that is in form of payments,
wages, and other benefits - are a huge and increasing part of operational expenditures; yet,
productivity may decrease amongst employees if such payments and benefits are not made
available to them. Simply put employees are more industrious and productive when reasonable
pay is attached to performance.

Although compensating workers may have an effect on productivity, other factors can also
increase output with little or no costs to the organization. While pay can be seen as an example,
workers also appreciate being validated if they are to be productive in the workplace. The need to
feel that their jobs are of value and contributes significantly to the success of the organization is
important to the workers. While adequately compensating them may help, validation does not
necessarily have to be financial. This is because simply thanking them can also make an employee

19
feel appreciated. As regards validation, workers may also be extremely productive when they can
envision where they fit in the big picture. Workers want to be seen as an integral part of the
organization as such strive to be indispensable. They want to have a grip on every aspect of
operations, which could also be favorable to their hopes and aspirations as this may present them
with the opportunity to showcase their capabilities and skills in other areas excluding their areas
of specialization. They also need to know that they have a voice and that their managers are willing
to give listening ears to their opinions as well as involve them in decision making processes (Lake,
2000).

2.1.4.3 Training and Career Development

In the aspect of management, training and career development is the area responsible for structural
activities intended at enhancing the performance as well as productivity levels of members of the
workforce in an organization. It can also be viewed as the act of acquiring knowledge including
the relevant skills and qualifications by members of a workforce necessary for organizational
growth and success (Bassanini, 2004). Mathis (2003) implied clearly that for a worker or group
of workers to effectively carry out their responsibilities, there is a need to constantly train and
develop workers. This is vital because workers who have been adequately trained and developed
with the right educational qualifications and skills are capable of providing huge payoffs for their
companies evident in their loyalty to the organization, sound knowledge and understanding of
operations, improved productivity levels and their contributions to overall stability and future
success of the firm.

The goal of engaging workers in training is to create the kind of effect that persists and can be
sustained far beyond the period or duration of the training activity or program itself. The emphasis
is on taking precise actions, decisions, steps as well as commitments that focuses employee
attention on integrating freshly acquired skills and concepts in the workplace. It refers to the
organizations formal relentless effort and commitment in constantly improving the performance
level as well as contentment of its workforce through various means of skill acquisition and
educational programs. Presently, these efforts in most companies have assumed an extensive and
diverse form of applications ranging from trainings associated with specific highly skilled jobs to
long term career growth. Today, training and career development has materialized as an official
corporate function, a fundamental strategic tool used in enacting policies that aid in the

20
achievement of an organization’s vision, mission, goals and objectives. Furthermore, firms of
different sizes have recognized the importance of training and have incorporated continuous
learning and other features associated with training and career development as a way of supporting
the progress of their workers and also as a means of securing highly skilled workers.

The value of workers and the continuous upgrade of their skills and qualifications through training
is now widely accepted and viewed as a requirement in gaining employment opportunities and
guaranteeing the profitability and future success of most organizations and businesses alike while
promoting the right kind of workplace culture that sustains constant learning.(Batram & Gibson,
2000) suggested that training and career development aids businesses in attracting a pool of
competent potential replacements for workers who may wish to leave or retire from active duty or
be asked to assume a position with greater responsibilities. It also aids an organization in ensuring
that it has the human capital required to sustain commercial growth and expansion. In addition,
training can facilitate the utilization of progressive technologies even in smaller businesses thereby
making it readily adaptable to a rapidly changing and constantly evolving competitive global
environment. Training can also aid in boosting morale, effectiveness, efficiency, as well as
improve the level of a worker’s productivity on the job. All of which are profitable, beneficial and
is more likely than not to contribute positively and significantly to an organization’s fiscal strength
and vitality (Bassanini, 2004).

Furthermore most employers have found that educational and tuition aid assistance benefits are
highly desired by employees. These programs have been found to aid employee retention and
recruitment. The program normally covers part or all expenses related to formal educational
courses as well as degree curriculums, including the expenses associated with books and laboratory
supplies (Mathis, 2003). An organization can also minimize the rate of unwanted worker turnover
cut costs associated with staffing and training by utilizing the funds planned for the development
of fresh inexperienced workers in retaining skilled and more experienced workers. Workers can
be motivated to increase their level of productivity when opportunities are provided for career
advancement whether through formal education or skill acquisition programs. This creates an
avenue to improve the skills and talents of the workforce while showing appreciation for their
ambitions and the quality they bring to the firm. Therefore it is important to note that sometimes a
well-tailored training program can mean as much to a worker as an increase in pay. Such benefits

21
are considered to be practical since it gratifies the workers and leads to an increase in productivity
and is probably not expensive when compared to a possible increase in pay (Harris, 2001).

Finally, via adequate training workers are able to assess and benefit from those opportunities
available for advancement in the hierarchy of the organization. This dimension is one that satisfies
the psychological needs of the employee. These are opportunities for individual growth, greater
and advanced roles and responsibilities as well as higher societal status. Promotion opportunities,
when perceived as fair is more likely to result in job satisfaction (Altinoz et.al, 2012; Hamidi et.al,
2014; Lumley et.al, 2011; Spector, 1997).

2.1.5 Factors Affecting Motivation

Hellriegel (1996) proposed a number of factors that affect motivation. These factors are individual
differences, job characteristics and organizational differences.

Individual Differences: are particular needs, beliefs, behaviors, interests and expertise that
workers bring to the job. This is due to the fact that workers are naturally different as such what
may appeal to one worker may not appeal to another. While some workers may be driven by
financial benefits (pay) as such pursue jobs with high financial benefits other workers may pursue
jobs that give them safety rather than more money.

Job Characteristics: describes the kind of task a worker is supposed to perform. It involves the
limit, content and challenges associated with the task like the required skills to perform the task,
the importance of the job and the kind of response that workers as regards the tasks they
accomplish. For example workers who see no worth in the job they do may find it degrading as
opposed to those who get pleasure from carrying out their job. Such workers tend to be motivated
and more productive than workers who do not.

Organizational Practices: are the guidelines and principles known as code of conducts,
management practices, HRM procedures and reward systems organizations use to guide behavior
of worker both inside and outside the firm. This means that how organizations choose to handle
their workers play a huge role in the way workers see the organization which affects their
commitment levels. Establishments that provide the right policies and reward systems its workers
find appealing has a great chance of improving workers productivity levels thereby enhancing
performance of the firm.

22
2.1.6 Dilemma Managers face in motivating Employees

Managers are conscious of the fact that their job entails achieving organizational objectives
through the aid of their workforce. Therefore, they have a duty to ensure that members of the
workforce are and stay adequately motivated if they are to achieve higher levels of productivity.
Regrettably, most organizations and their management are often faced with the task of figuring out
the right kind of rewards and suitable programs that would aid in keeping their workers motivated.
This problem stems from common misconceptions surrounding the concept of motivation and the
fulfillment of workers. It has been noted that most managers may not be great judges of employee
motivation as they believe they are. As a matter of fact, people generally appear to constantly
misjudge those elements driving employee motivation (Morse, 2003). A few of these
misconceptions have been outlined and discoursed below.

1. One-size-fits all reward and recognition: A lot of managers utilize this concept as a means of
recognizing, rewarding and inspiring members of their workforce. However, the challenges
associated with this type of program is that it fails to recognize those differences that are peculiar
to members of the workforce. It is imperative to understand that employees may differ in terms of
motives which may cause them to behave in diverse ways as they are motivated by different things.
Similarly, a worker’s cultural values, level of education, religious background, and even sexual
orientations may have an effect on what motivates them. It is therefore crucial that an organization
tailor rewards and recognition in a manner that creates room to understand workers and their
distinctive qualities (Atchison, 2003).

2. Money is the ultimate Motivator: The notion that money is the most important or only
motivating factor was originally suggested by (Taylor, 1911). This misconception has misled
managers in the sense that some of them either view money as the sole motivator of workers or
tend to have a preference for financial rewards. Also, it should be noted that financial rewards can
inspire workers to a certain limit; this is because when compensation is either low or considered
unfair, it is demoralizing to workers. When it is high, it can also be seen as a de-motivator resulting
in individual performance and levels of productivity being altered in a bid to sustain high levels of
compensation (Atchison, 2003). He further suggested that once monetary rewards can be predicted
by workers it becomes a right instead of a motivator.

23
3. Not everyone can be motivated: Managers with this point of view tend to disregard the idea
of motivation in general. The fact is that every worker is motivated by one thing or the other, the
challenge for managers is that whatever it is may not be job related that is in line with what the
work entails (Morse, 2003). Therefore the task of a manager is to ascertain those exact motivational
elements that appeal to the workforce and seek ways of channeling them towards work associated
behaviors (Manion, 2005).

4. All motivation is either extrinsic or intrinsic: Some managers are of the opinion that
motivation is either extrinsic or intrinsic and therefore concentrate on only one of them while
disregarding the other. In most organizations, managers as well as members of the workforce
appear to have a preference for extrinsic rewards however it is crucial for managers to recollect
that naturally, various elements motivate workers and not necessarily one kind of extrinsic or
intrinsic reward (Manion, 2005). Thus it is essential that managers try as much as possible to
deliver a mix of both types of reward so as to attain effective motivational tools and packages for
the workforce. Putting aside the common misconceptions frequently affecting adequate
motivational practices, packages and programs, (Bessel, Dicks, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002) also
stated that managers are confronted with the predicament of figuring out those factors that actually
motivate workers. They also mentioned that the absence of a suitable means of recognizing those
elements are even more complicated as managers lack understanding in effecting excellent
motivational programs aimed at increasing productivity and creating the right work environment
(Bessel, Dicks, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). They warned that managers should refrain from
assuming that workers feel appreciated simply because they remain productive, or the idea that
whatever appeals to them in terms of recognition and reward, will also appeal to others.

In conclusion, most managers in an effort to motivate their workers fail repeatedly because as soon
as they figure out a way of motivating them, they stick to such methods without any attempt to
vary them. Such repetitive actions usually end up losing its value thus becoming an ineffective
means of motivating workers. Therefore managers should be flexible in their approach to
motivation.

2.1.7 Productivity

Glen (2014) stated that the manufacturing sector is an ever changing beast and every year, the
industry is faced with fresh challenges. The author stated that virtually all media houses constantly
24
report the closure of industrial units, labour disputes between employers and their employees or
reductions in the labour force due to recession and other economic dynamics. As a result, the image
of manufacturing industries have been marred by low wages, high labour turnover, inadequate
working conditions, poor performance and productivity (Githinji, 2014).

Productivity can be referred to as the quantity of work that is attained in a unit of time by means
of the factors of production. These factors include technology, capital, entrepreneurship, land and
labour. It is the link between inputs and outputs and increases when an increase in output occurs
with a lesser than comparative increase in input. It also occurs when equal amount of output is
generated using fewer inputs (ILO, 2005).

Bhatti (2007) and Qureshi (2007) were of the perspective that productivity can be seen as a
measure of performance that encompasses both efficiency and effectiveness. It can also be referred
to as the ratio of output or production capacity of the workers in an organization. It is the
correlation that exists between the quantity of inputs and outputs from a clearly defined process.
The performance of a business which determines its continued existence and development is
largely dependent on the degree of productivity of its workers. Yesufu (2000) stated that the
prosperity of a nation as well as social and economic welfare of its citizens is determined by the
level of effectiveness and efficiency of its various sub components.
Productivity is a total measure of the efficiency or capacity to transform inputs that is raw materials
into finished products or services. More precisely, productivity is a measure that indicates how
well essential resources are used to accomplish specified objectives in terms of quantity and quality
within a given time frame. It is suitable when measuring the actual output produced compared to
the input of resources, taking time into consideration. Hence, productivity ratios indicate the extent
at which organizational resources are effectively and efficiently used to produce desired outputs.
Efficiency takes into account the time and resources required to execute a given task. Therefore,
it can be concluded that effectiveness and efficiency are significant predictors of productivity.
2.1.7.1 Employee Productivity

Jennifer and George (2006) Argued that the performance of workers contribute directly to an
organization’s level of effectiveness, efficiency and even towards the achievement of
administrative goals. It also stated that a corporation’s failure to certify that its workers are
motivated has a negative influence on its organizational effectiveness and efficiency thereby

25
affecting employee’s productivity levels concerning expected goals and objectives. According to
Antomioni (1999) a worker’s level of productivity is reliant on the extent at which workers believe
that certain motivational desires will be fulfilled stating that workers become demoralized as such
less productive once they perceive that their desires can’t be met or gratified.

Mathis and John (2003) suggested that productivity refers to a measure of the quantity and quality
of work done, bearing in mind the cost of capital used. The greater the level of organizational
productivity, the greater the competitive edge. This is because the costs associated with the
production of goods and services are lesser. Better productivity ratios does not automatically mean
that more output is manufactured; it could also mean that less workers or less financial resources
and time were utilized in producing the similar output. McNamara (2003) stated that productivity
may be denoted in form of quality, quantity, time and cost. He also stated that evaluating
productivity has to with measuring the length of time it takes an average employee to produce a
specified level of output. Although measuring productivity may seem difficult, it is however very
significant since it directly affects organizational profitability.

Brady (2000) claimed that none of the resources utilized for production in the workplace are so
thoroughly examined as the human capital. Most of the activities carried out in HR Systems are
intended to influence worker or organizational productivity. Compensation, evaluation systems,
training and development, recruitment, job characteristics are HR responsibilities directly aimed
at productivity. Bernardin (2007) clearly stated that the importance of motivational factors cannot
be underestimated by an organization in increasing the productivity levels of a workforce
especially when trying to gain competitive advantage. He also stated that productivity may be hard
to measure, but it can be evaluated in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of workers.

2.1.7.2 Effectiveness

In general, effectiveness is referred to as the degree to which set objectives are accomplished and
policies achieve what they were designed to achieve. It focuses on affecting the purpose that is
achieving the required or projected results. A program or service is said to be effective if such a
program is able to accomplish set objectives or estimated outcomes. As regards workers, it is a
measure of how well workers productivity levels meet set goals and objectives of the organization
(Yesufu, 2000). Therefore an employee is said to be effective when he/she is able to achieve
desired results in line with organizational goals and objectives.
26
2.1.7.3 Efficiency

Efficiency on the other hand is productivity of estimated effects; specifically productivity without
any form of waste. This has to do with workers abilities to work productively with minimum waste
in terms of energy, time and cost. Efficiency is more or less a contrast between the use of inputs
in a clearly defined process and generated outputs. For instance, given a specified number of input
or resources, a decision making entity be it individual, corporate, administrative institution, or a
state realizes a level of output considered to be the maximum achievable based on the present
conditions, then such an entity is assumed to be efficient. However if it generates lesser than what
it is estimated to generate it is said to be inefficient. As such efficiency stems from the correlation
between inputs and outputs, and is referred to basically as the degree to which outputs are produced
while minimizing manufacturing costs (Harris, 2001).

2.1.8 The Nexus between Motivation and Productivity

Generally studies conducted on the impact of motivation as it relates to workplace productivity

has drawn significant attention in the aspect of management; however it has been basically
disregarded by most establishments. This may be due to the fact that the concept of motivation is
complex and relative in the sense that what may appeal to an individual may not appeal to another
(Reilly, 2003).
Generally, most organizations through the use of incentives seek out ways to motivate their work
force. These incentives could be in form of good working conditions, work environment and
compensation amongst others. Incentives are regarded as variable payments (monetary and non-
monetary) made to workers or a team of workers based on the quantity of output or results attained.
On the other hand, it can be seen as payments made with the purpose of stimulating workers’
performance and productivity levels towards achieving greater objectives (Banjoko, 2006).

Incentives can also be described as any compensation with the exception of basic wages or salaries
that varies based on the capacity of the workforce to attain certain standards, such as pre-
determined procedures and stated organizational goals and objectives (Martocchio, 2006).
Therefore one can conclude that there is a link between motivation and productivity this is due to
the fact that a lack of motivation leads to a decrease in productivity and vice versa.

27
Also, previous studies has revealed that at various points in time, low productivity levels have been
documented in virtually all establishments be it government or private sectors in Nigeria (Mbogu,
2001; Ezulike, 2001; Iheriohanma, 2006); also conclusions from further studies show that low
levels of productivity can be elevated if workers are provided with adequate motivation which may
or may not be financial (Tongo, 2005).

In terms of productivity, members of a workforce may vary in terms of how much value they bring
to the organization, which is certainly not limited to the activities they perform but also how well
they perform such activities; generally organizational performance is largely dependent on the
level of productivity of the workers and various departments that make up the organization.
Therefore it is imperative that organizations fairly reward their workforce based on relative
productivity and performance levels (Martocchio, 2006).

Finally, for workers to perform at higher levels, the organization has a crucial part to play in
ensuring that it highly motivates the members of its workforce in order to attract, retain, and
improve productivity levels of both workers and the organization as a whole (Reilly, 2003).

2.2 Theoretical Framework

Several theories on the concept of motivation has been conceptualized decades ago namely content
and process theories. Content or need theories are centered on the needs of a workforce while
process theories focus more on behaviors associated with the workforce. According to Abbot and
Doucouliagos (2003), content theories tend to acknowledge the basic necessities, incentives and
the task or job itself as significant elements that contribute to job contentment while examining
the internal factors influencing the conduct of members of a workforce. Examples include
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, Herzberg’s two-factor theory, McClelland’s theory and
Alderfer’s ERG theory. Burns (2015) suggested that process theories try to describe how behavior
is stimulated, directed, maintained and stopped. There are four main types of process theories
namely Reinforcement, Expectancy, Equity, and Goal setting. However, only Maslow’s need
theory, Herzberg’s two-factor theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory are considered in this study.

2.2.1 Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

In the book titled Motivation and Personality, Abraham Maslow a distinguished psychologist
postulated the Hierarchy of Needs theory (Maslow, 1954). He Stated that human needs can be

28
categorized into five groups and that these groups can be organized in a pecking order ranging
from the most important to the least important. These comprised needs such as basic or
physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem as well as self-actualization needs. He was of the
opinion that an individual is primarily motivated to fulfill physiological needs first before
considering others. This is because physiological needs otherwise known as basic needs are
essential for an individual’s survival. As such once these basic needs are fulfilled they are no longer
perceived as primary motivational elements by the individual who now moves up the hierarchy
seeking to fulfill safety needs. The process lingers pending when self-actualization needs are
fulfilled. In a workplace, the logic to a certain extent is quite reasonable as workers who lack
essential needs for continued existence such as food, air and water will barely be able to make any
significant impact on productivity as such would put in little effort at work.

In support, Jennifer and George (2006) agreed that individuals from all walks of life strive to
gratify five elementary needs: physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness needs, esteem
needs and self-actualization needs. They claimed that these needs form a hierarchy with the most
fundamental need that is physiological and safety needs situated at the lowest part of the hierarchy
(Jennifer & George, 2006). They were of the notion that needs at the lowest-level should be
satisfied before greater needs can be satisfied.

This theory focuses on the notion that individuals are driven by unfulfilled needs, and that the
fulfillment of needs at the bottom end of the pyramid only leads to the pursuit for the fulfillment
of those at the higher end (Maslow, 1954). This theory suggested that for an individual to behave
in an unselfish manner, every need has to be fulfilled that is both deficiency and growth needs.
Therefore, in as much as individuals are interested in satisfying their desires, they are advancing
towards growth, which is self-actualization.

In the business setting, this implies that if workers are unable to satisfy their desires, there would
be a loss of morale to work and perform excellently in the discharge of their jobs to the
organization. Maslow believed that needs can’t be fully satisfied citing that needs that are more
or less achieved stops to be a motivator. Therefore, managers in a bid to improve productivity need
to recognize the position of members of its workforce in relation to the hierarchy so as to be able
to motivate them accordingly bearing in mind that motivational tools should be tailored to meeting
their desires (Robbins, 2001).

29
This theory presents businesses particularly in the area of management, an understanding of those
elements that arouse or affect a worker’s behavior and work performance levels within a
corporation. The theory posited that individuals have diverse needs that are active at different
times and that only unfulfilled needs can affect behavior (Obikeze, 2005). Therefore, in order to
adequately motivate employees at their place of work, managers are obligated to ascertain and
understand the present needs of their workforce. Maslow's model specified basically that needs at
the lower end such as physiological and security requirements must be fulfilled before the pursuit
of those top level motivators such as esteem and self-fulfillment. The diagram below illustrates
the hierarchy of needs;

The need for self-actualization

Experience purpose, meaning and realising

all inner potentials

Esteem Need (The need to be a unique

individual with self respect and to enjoy general
esteem from others)

Love and belonging needs(the need for belonging, to receive

and give love, appreciation, friendship)

Security Need (The basic need for social security in a family and a
society that protects against hunger and vioence)

The Physiological Needs (the need for food, water, shelter and
clothing)

Source: Maslow (1954)

Figure1: Maslow’s Hierarchy-of-Need Model

Physiological needs: represents those needs at the lower end of the pyramid which is also referred
to as basic human needs. They involve the necessity to ensure satisfaction of the basic natural
drives like food, air, water and shelter. Maslow is of the notion that organizations must provide

30
workers with salaries or payments that assists them in meeting expenses associated with suitable
living standards. James and Stoner (2009) also suggested that managers can aid in satisfying these
needs by ensuring that workers pay are enough to assist them in catering for their needs
sufficiently.

Safety needs: this is the need for security constituting the need for safety, freedom from any form
of injury be it physical, mental or fiscal terms. Such needs are stimulated after basic survival needs
have been achieved. They refer to a worker’s desire for safer and favorable work settings without
any prospective fears or injuries. Businesses try to gratify such desires by providing their
workforce with safety kits like helmets, health and well-being initiatives, safety equipment, safety
wears and boots etc. The logic is to make sure workers are inspired to perform well and discharge
their duties successfully devoid of tension or injury in a setting they assume to be secure.
Executives can aid in catering for these needs by providing adequate job security, health aids and
safer work surroundings.

Belongingness needs: describes the desire of the workforce for a sense of belonging, approval,
rapport and love. They are initiated after security requirements are fulfilled. These needs create
room for members of a workforce to be associated and bond with themselves. Workers are moved
to perform well in their jobs when there is a feeling of acceptance. By stimulating interactive
relations among workers, organizing collective gatherings like holiday get-togethers’ management
can aid in satisfying those needs.

Esteem needs: focuses on the needs of workers to be cherished and appreciated. It involves a
worker’s longing to be acknowledged and to have self-respect. When workers are elevated and
recognized in their numerous work achievements, these kind of needs are fulfilled. Maslow stated
that this type of needs are triggered after belongingness needs are gratified. Workers for example
are moved to perform well if they are given awards for notable attainments in their jobs.

Self-actualization needs: is a worker’s desire to attain self-satisfaction and individual growth. It

is the desire of workers to evolve and make the most of their potentials. The idea is for workers to
be driven to put in their best performances for the organization as long it provides room for them
to attain self-satisfaction in their areas of expertise giving them the chance to be all they can be.
Self-actualized workers represent prized resources to an organization and management can aid in

31
satisfying this need by providing prospects for workers to utilize their skillset and talents to the
maximum.

The aforementioned needs comprises Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from the lower levels
to the higher levels. He stated that people would attempt to placate those needs that are of utmost
priority to them first. Employers in a bid to maximize workers performance have to seek ways to
gratify their needs. This is because workers are only interested in performing well if their wants
are well catered for.

Critique of the Theory

Maslow suggested that if individuals are nurtured in places where their necessities aren’t met, the
probability that they will function healthy is unlikely compared to individuals whose needs were
met given the environment they were brought up. Investigations challenging Maslow’s theory has
backed the distinctiveness existing amongst the basic or deficiency needs and the growth needs
but show that not everyone has the ability to gratify their growth desires on the job. Based on
findings from previous studies, managers at strategic levels or higher echelons of an organization
are capable of satisfying both their growth and deficiency needs while those at operational or
functional levels have the ability to gratify mainly their basic needs on the job.

Maslow’s theory is yet to receive tremendous backing with regards to the precise concept it
suggests (Greenberg & Baron 2003). To them his ideology seems to address the attitude of
employees towards their job. They are of the opinion that his proposed theory is particularly ideal
in defining the behavior of personnel whose growth needs are respectively high. Also workers who
do not fancy the ideology of an increase in growth needs may not appreciate any functional
response to their work.

Centers and Bugental (2007) in one of their studies postulated that a worker’s upbringing, altitudes
and ambitions has an influence on a worker’s needs, hopes as well as approach in evaluating
situations. Also they identified three main reproaches associated with the need theory. (1)
Inadequate experimental data to sustain their deductions (2) the assumption that personnel are

32
identical, and (3) the said theory is not associated with the concept of motivation but are relatively
principles of job fulfillment. This opinion was also shared by (Lawler, 2003)

Lawler (2003) in criticizing the theory of needs stated that his argument was that the concept made
certain impractical assumptions concerning personnel such as (1) workers are identical (2)
circumstances are similar and (3) there is an ultimate way of meeting needs. Basset-Jones and
Lloyd (2004) also shared a common opinion.

Basset-Jones and Lloyd (2004) opined that most detractors of Abraham Maslow’s theory believe
that it is common and also a consequence of the nature and emotions of workers to take recognition
for meeting their needs and to express frustration on those not fulfilled.

Although Maslow’s theory was able to establish the fact that individuals have needs, it has failed
to provide an acceptable linkage amongst specific need fulfillment and the realization of an
establishment’s goals and objectives. Also it doesn’t really provide solutions associated with the
complications of personnel differences in motivation. This can only be done when process or
mechanical theories are considered (Assam, 2002).

Abraham Maslow was commonly criticized because of his methodology. His selection and study
of a small number of individuals that he himself acknowledged to be self-actualized leading him
to draw conclusions or make generalizations about the concept of self-actualization did not sit well
with his critics and called his methods into question. This is because such methods did not seem
scientific in any way as it lacked systematic approach of carrying out a valid research.

Also his ideology that lower needs be fulfilled before considering self-actualized needs while it
may hold true in most cases were not justified in other cases as were seen in a few exceptions.
These include individuals who were unable to cater for their deficiency or lower needs but were
able to at least reveal or fulfill certain aspects of their self-actualization needs. Most of these
individuals comprise several notable artistes, writers, poets, philosophers etc. Some like Galileo,
Rembrandt, Toulouse Lautrec and van Gogh amongst others were said to have suffered from
poverty, mental illness violent childhood, and depression.

Furthermore the caliber of people Abraham Maslow considered for his study was called into
question. This is because they represented a class of people that were close to perfect. Envision a
person that matches the following picture: loving, fair, genuine, stress-free, independent, natural,

33
resourceful, brilliant and pleasant. This kind of people are considered a rare breed as opposed to
those we have today. As such he studied the likes of Lincoln, Einstein, Roosevelt Eleanor and
others who represented his description of the best.

Noe (2006) argued that Maslow provided a logical explanation for the self-centered individualism
witnessed in the past two decades. He believes that the theory with respect to self-actualization
needs encourages individuals to seek after self-gain without considering the welfare of others who
probably still haven’t satisfied their physiological needs. However he failed to realize that
Maslow’s ideology for individuals in pursuit of self-actualization comprised of individuals who
were not in any way threatened by deficiency needs and were capable of helping others.

It is possible that Abraham Maslow was too positive in judging human nature and character. His
notion of an inborn positivity is difficult to receive today with all the happenings of crime and
violence all over the globe. Definitively humans are more than capable of exhibiting some form of
goodness as Maslow envisioned but history has proven time and again that being reliable, devoted
and supportive, sociable, polite and kind amongst other attributes is not the prevailing human
propensity.

Relevance of the theory

Maslow’s theory although one of the earliest propounded theory of motivation is still very much
relevant and applicable in present day organizational settings. Despite its shortcomings, it has been
able to identify those needs that are peculiar to an individual and the effects it may have on an
individual’s performance or productivity levels in an organization. Hence, it is vital that managers
try to understand those needs affecting members of its workforce and provide adequate motivation
tailored to suit or gratify those needs. In order to achieve high productivity levels from members
of the workforce, the organization must consider employees the backbone of the organization as
such an asset to the organization. Therefore to ensure that workers remain highly productive and
in a bid to achieve continuous growth, stability and success of the organization, Maslow’s theory
posits that the needs of the workforce must first be given due consideration.

2.2.2 Frederick Herzberg Two-Factor Theory

Frederick Herzberg maintained that two completely distinct set of factors determine employee
behavior in organizations. These include Hygiene factors and Motivators. Herzberg established

34
that factors which appeared to ensure an employee’s job satisfaction were connected to the job
contents or the aspects of the job itself and he referred to them as motivators, meanwhile, factors
which appeared to cause employees dissatisfaction were connected to the job context; and he
referred to them as hygiene factors (Herzberg, 2000).

Hygiene factors are factors that will eliminate dissatisfaction when present; examples are company
policy, basic needs, status, working environment, salary, supervision etc. while motivators are
those factors that will result in demotivation and lack of interest in the job when not fulfilled and
this could result in employees looking outside the organization for employment. Hygiene elements
are described as upkeep elements considered important in evading dissatisfaction. On the other
hand, these elements single-handedly do not ensure employee job fulfillment and high levels of
motivation. These are factors not directly concerned with the job but concerned with the job
context (Smerek & Peterson, 2007). These factors are termed hygiene factors because their
presence ensures a reasonable level of satisfaction and their absence can cause dissatisfaction.

Hence, it is imperative that managers make available hygiene elements in order to minimize bases
of employee dissatisfaction, however to it is much more important to ensure that motivators are
present since these are the factors that motivate employees and eventually result in satisfaction.
Motivators include job associated aspects including thought-provoking tasks, work achievements,
acknowledgment and responsibility, chances for advancement and growth, recognition for
achievement (Lumley, Coetzee Tladinyane & Ferreira, 2011). Motivated and contented workers
are better positioned to be more committed as such productive than those who are merely not
dissatisfied.

This theory therefore admonishes that business managers should avoid being one-sided in making
decisions concerning factors that ensure satisfaction and motivation for optimum performance.
Based on his work, Herzberg (1987) then posited that in order to ensure job satisfaction, the
following conditions should be ensured in the organization; provision of achievement and
advancement opportunities, recognition for performance, ensuring fit between employees’
competencies and tasks, ensuring learning and development opportunities.

The motivation-hygiene theory is therefore relevant for this research as it reveals that hygiene
factors including supervision, pay and benefits, company policies, work environment are vital to
avoid job dissatisfaction and motivators, which include, learning and development opportunities,

35
 challenging tasks, rewards and recognition for performance, advancement and growth
opportunities, ensuring fit between employee competencies and tasks are important to higher
productivity levels from employees. Therefore examining the relationship between motivation and
productivity also anchors on this theory. The diagram below illustrates Herzberg’s two factor
theory;

Low High

Hygiene Factors Job Satisfaction

i. Quality of work
Supervision
ii. Salary
iii. Organizational
Motivation Factors
Policy
;
iv. Physical working i. Advancement
conditions ii. Opportunities
v. Relationship with for personal
others development
vi. Job security iii. Recognition
iv. Responsibility
v. Achievement

Job Dissatisfaction Low

High

Source: (Herzberg, 1974)

Figure 2: Herzberg Two Factor Theory

Hygiene Factors

36
Herzberg claimed that the lack of certain elements capable of causing dissatisfaction amongst
members of a workforce are referred to as hygiene elements. These elements focus mainly on the
characteristics of the job as well as other external concerns. The presence of these elements may
not guarantee employee motivation but a lack of it might result in dissatisfaction. These elements
consists of:

a. Salaries

b. Operational Conditions

c. Job Security

d. Level and quality of supervision

e. Business policies and managerial processes

f. Personal relations at work.

Motivation Factors

These factors refer to elements capable of provoking workers to improve their work-related
performance. Herzberg (1974), characterized these elements as intrinsic stating that they are
largely concerned with the job design, and how it is integrated in achieving set goals. He asserted
that managers aiming to attain enhanced performance levels, must consider the inclusion of several
factors in the job setting. This in turn allows for the development of inherent motivation within
workers. These elements comprise:

a. Interest in the work

b. Recognition

c. Growth / development

d. Achievement

Motivators results from an internal dispositions within workers. Herzberg (1974), stated that both
hygiene and motivation methods should be applied concurrently. He cited that the absence of
hygiene elements does not affect morale but causes dissatisfaction amongst workers. Likewise the
presence of those elements does not necessarily affect motivation, but leads to satisfaction among

37
workers. Higher levels of motivation will certainly boost the morale of workers while lower levels
of motivation will significantly decrease the general level of motivation. This will however not
cause total discontentment but instead a sense of non-fulfillment.

Critique of the theory

Schroder (2008) made use of the two-factor theory as the theoretical basis for a study comprising
eight hundred and thirty five college workers so as to ascertain the effect of demographical factors
on job satisfaction. Findings from the research showed largely that job satisfaction was associated
with age and educational achievements, and that the degree of intrinsic and extrinsic job
satisfaction for diverse work-related groups differed. These conclusions disputed Herzberg’s
discoveries (Schroder, 2008). Furthermore detractors of the this theory claimed that Herzberg
presumed an existing relationship between satisfaction and productivity in his study stressing more
on satisfaction and ignoring productivity

Lin (2007) claimed that job contentment is multivariate in nature and the theory tends to over-
simplify a complicated system of emotions and responses with inter-relationships amongst
numerous factors. Shipley and Kiely (1986) supported the claim that the theory was a decent
starting point for managers but should not be endorsed for strict applications owing to the over-
simplicity of the concept. Stello (2011) also maintained that the theory tends to over-simplify job
satisfaction and therefore should not be utilized as an ideal prototype. Also an examination of
departmental workers of higher education in Uganda concluded that any given factor is capable of
evoking job satisfaction or inducing dissatisfaction pending on situational variables in the work
environment (Sesanga & Garrett, 2005).

Criticism levied at Herzberg’s methods described the inclination for respondents to provide
generally acceptable responses in their surveys, causing those factors that may influence
dissatisfaction to be credited to extrinsic factors as opposed to intrinsic. Wargborn examined the
pre-existing literatures citing this disapproval as a point of reference. Findings showed that
Herzberg’s data was the result of such tendencies and should not be certified as a valid explanation
of work-related behaviors (Wargborn, 2008).

Farr (1977) also examined this theory in connection to new approaches recommended in the field
of industrial psychology. He was of the view that while Herzberg’s contributions provide valuable

38
insights into the worker’s viewpoints as regards their workplace, he however erred as a researcher
by accepting that the numbers used in data analysis generated information that could be
generalized. Furthermore, his belief that his study may have led to the discovery of the causes of
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction was erroneous (Farr, 1977). Although there are significant
weaknesses associated with the theory it is still relevant to managers in the workplace.

Relevance of the theory

Despite criticisms levied at the Two-Factor theory, it remains very important to organizations. It
implies that managers and their organizations must constant guarantee the adequacy of the hygiene
factors to avoid dissatisfaction amongst members of the workforce. This is because employee
dissatisfaction leads to loss of morale which in turn leads to a decrease in employee productivity
levels. Also, managers must make sure that the kind of work or responsibilities assigned to
employees is challenging, exciting and fulfilling so as to ensure workers are inspired to improve
work related performance levels. This theory lays emphasis on job-enrichment so as to encourage
workers to be highly productive. Finally to ensure that employees are highly productive, managers
must ensure that the kind of task being assigned to the workers should maximally utilize their
abilities and experiences. Focusing on the motivational factors can improve work-quality and
productivity levels of both the employees and the organization as a whole.

2.2.3 Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

The expectancy theory, as opposed to the need theory, is a process theory. It relates to the diversity
existing in the workplace as regards the opinions, thoughts and concerns of workers including their
attitude and behaviors towards the job (Purvis, Zagenczyk & McCray, 2015; George & Jones,
2012). This theory specifically focuses on the personal evaluations of a workforce and their work
place. It assesses the activities of workers based on their hopes and aspirations (Purvis, Zagenczyk
& McCray, 2015). The theory identifies two major concerns; the first concern is that irrespective
of various possible outcomes, workers are motivated to commit their efforts to an organization
only if they are certain that the end result or outcome will realize a specific level of performance
(George & Jones, 2012). This means that, if the members of a workforce lack faith in their ability
to perform at a particular level, the inspiration to perform the job effectively will be low or lost
(George & Jones, 2012).

39
 The other concern is that workers would only be encouraged to perform at a particular level, if
their performance at this level would bring about preferred outcomes (George & Jones, 2012).
Schedlitzki & Edwards (2014) linked the path-goal theory to the assumptions of the expectancy
theory stating that workers have a tendency to perform effectively if they believe that they have
the capability of fulfilling the assignment, achieving the expected outcome and that this expected
outcome is of utmost value to them. The theory implies that workers will only be willing to put
their energy to work if the outcome of both concerns are positive (George & Jones, 2012). This
means that the positivity of an outcome is assumed to be associated with a specific action, as such
the willingness of a workforce to perform is largely dependent on how positively inclined they
view the outcome (Vroom, 1964; Lin, 2007). The theory outlines three key elements that
determines a worker’s level of motivation: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy (Estes &
Polnick, 2012). The diagram below illustrates the theory;

Figure 3: Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

Effort Performance Outcome Motivation

Expectancy: Instrumentality:
Perceived likelihood that Valence:
Perceived likelihood that
effort leads to quality Value of expected
quality performance leads to
performance outcomes to the worker
preferred outcomes

Source: (Vroom, 1964)

From the figure above, valence has to do with the worth that specific outcomes have to members
of a workforce, and the need to achieve it (Estes & Polnick, 2012). They also claimed that
outcomes are positively valent to a workforce if members of the workforce prefer achieving that
outcome than not, as such workers prefer to evade outcomes that are negatively valent. (Vroom,
1964) described valence as a function of the desires, principles, goals, and sources of inspiration
guiding workers. (Purvis, Zagenczyk & McCray, 2015) defined it as the level of individual
attractions of the kind of benefits that accompany the attainment of set organizational objectives.

The logic here is that valence does not imply the actual fulfillment of outcomes, but rather the
estimated fulfillment of futuristic outcomes, acting as motivators towards prospective actions in

40
expectancy theory. As such it can be positively or negatively inclined in terms of outcomes, and
may possibly vary in degrees and sizes (George & Jones, 2012). The degree of valence refers to
how attractive or unattractive an outcome is to a worker. Furthermore, as described in the need
theory, workers have a preference hence they tend to consider valent outcomes that gratify their
needs (George & Jones, 2012).

In addition, the theory recommends that outcomes should be related to desired workplace
behaviors, work performance and productivity (George & Jones, 2012). This in relation to
instrumentality, which is the second element associated with the theory, refers to the worker’s
beliefs and confidence that first level outcomes will lead to second level outcomes (Vroom, 1964).
It can be defined as the perception of workers as regards the likelihood of performing effectively
if they commit their energy, skills, and time creatively and innovatively in discharging their duties
(Purvis, Zagenczyk & McCray, 2015).

Instrumentality is also directed towards achieving higher-order outcomes, and describes the extent
at which primary level outcomes precede anticipated secondary level outcomes (Parashar, 2016).
This is to say that workers will place high valence on performance at higher levels when they
believe that such a level of performance is instrumental in gaining other gratifying outcomes (e.g.
additional pay). Likewise, they will also place a high valence if performance at higher levels is
instrumental in preventing outcomes that they want to prevent (Estes & Polnick, 2012). Like
valence, instrumentality may be positively or negatively inclined, and can also differ in size and
magnitude (George & Jones, 2012).Furthermore, Instrumentality will probably be low if workers
perceive that valued rewards accompany all levels of performance (Estes & Polnick, 2012). High
Instrumentality, that is where workers believe that with specific levels of performance expected
outcomes will be achieved, are very effective in motivating workers (George & Jones, 2012).At
times, regardless of what workers perceive that extremely valent outcomes will result mainly from
work performance, workers may still not be inspired to perform at higher levels (George & Jones,
2012).

At this point, the third element of the theory referred to as expectancy is considered. Expectancy
is the momentary belief regarding the possibility that a specific action will be accompanied by a
specific outcome (Estes & Polnick, 2012). This belief is generally embedded in a particular
worker’s previous experiences, self-worth and how challenging the performance standard or

41
objective is perceived to be. Expectancy provides an in-depth understanding of why morale can be
low even when instrumentality and valence is high, hence it is the perception that actions, or
individual efforts, may lead to expected outcomes (Parashar, 2016). It claims that workers will be
moved to perform at higher levels only if they believe they have the capacity to do so (George &
Jones, 2012). This means that regardless of how valent or high instrumentality and other elements
may be, if workers do not have the conviction that they can perform at a particular level, they will
lack the motivation to do so. This validates the claim associated with the subject of self-efficacy
that workers sometimes lack the conviction that their efforts will yield the desired level of
performance (George & Jones, 2012).

An Understanding of the elements in expectancy theory; valence, instrumentality, and expectancy,

gives an idea of the reasons behind employee involvement in achieving preferred organizational
outcomes (Purvis, Zagenczyk & McCray, 2015). Although these elements can individually affect
employee motivation, they can however have a more influential effect on motivation if they are
integrated (Estes and Polnick, 2012). It can also be established that these elements mentally affect
the beliefs of workers, and triggers motivational forces that eventually influences employee
behaviors.

George and Jones (2012) mentioned that for workers to be motivated and perform at higher levels,
all conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, valence must be high; workers must crave the outcomes
that the organization offers. Secondly, instrumentality must be high, which means that workers
perceive that they must perform at high levels if they are to achieve the outcome. Finally,
expectancy must be high, indicating that workers must believe that working hard and committing
their energy will bring about higher levels of performance (George & Jones, 2012).

The theory suggested that if one amongst the three conditions is not fulfilled, there will be a lack
of motivation (George & Jones, 2012). As such, workers must be convinced that performing
assigned tasks at higher levels will lead to the achievement of desired outcomes, as regards the
positivity of instrumentality, workers must believe that expected outcomes will be obtained, also
for positive valent outcomes, workers must believe they can truly perform at a very high level if
they commit their effort, leading to high expectancy (George & Jones, 2012).

This theory lays emphasis on the psychological processes concerning choice. It considers the self-
interests associated with aligning rewards based on worker’s needs, wants and the relationships

42
amongst desired behaviors, rewards and organizational goals. For businesses, it aids them in
relating rewards directly to performance while making sure that rewards are merited and appealing
to workers. The theory assumes that behaviors result from deliberate choices amongst alternative
outcomes with the objective of maximizing satisfaction and minimizing pain. Vroom recognized
that a worker’s performance is centered on individual elements such as nature, abilities,
knowledge, experience, qualifications and skills. He stated that effort, performance and outcomes
are related to employee motivation. Several elements comprising expectancy, instrumentality and
valence were utilized in supporting the theory. Remarkably, this theory is a function of perception
meaning that managers may feel that they have made available all things suitable for motivation,
and although this might work for most of the employees in the organization, it does not guarantee
that all the workers will be motivated by it.

This theory may appear to be most appropriate in a traditionally inclined work setting where a
worker’s level of motivation is dependent on whether they desire the reward offered for good
performances and if they are convinced that committing their effort will result in obtaining that
reward. Although, it can be equally applied in situations where individuals do certain things
because they anticipate a positive outcome.

For instance, an individual may recycle paper because of the thought that it is vital to preserve
resources and take a standpoint on environmentally inclined matters (valence); also the
individual’s belief that the more effort they commit into recycling, the more paper they recycle
(expectancy); and lastly the thought that as more papers are recycled the lesser the resource
utilization (instrumentality). Therefore, the logic of the model is not based on selfish interests in
rewards, but on the relations individuals make toward the estimation of an outcome and the
commitment they make in achieving those outcomes. The theory projects that the workforce of an
organization will be motivated if they are convinced that:
i. Committing their efforts will result in improved work performances
ii. Improved work performance will result in organizational rewards, like increase in salaries
and other benefits
iii. Rewards offered are of value to members of the workforce.
In attempt to improve the performance-outcome relationship, employers should consider using
methods linking rewards strictly to productivity. Managers should make sure that rewards provided

43
are merited and desired by the workers. As regards improving the effort-performance relationship,
management should participate in developing their workforce to improve their competencies and
beliefs that more effort will certainly result in better performance and productivity levels.
Critique of the Theory
This theory of motivation has specifically been targeted by a lot of critics, (Lawler, 2003; Porter
& Lawler, 1968). It was initially proposed by Victor Vroom (Vroom, 1964). The criticisms levied
against the theory are more of extensions to the original conceptions rather than deviations from
them. In fact, Vroom made a self-declaration that the theory of motivation should subsequently be
improved or upgraded with discoveries from the most recent studies.
One of the main criticisms associated with this theory is its simplicity. This is as a result of its
failure to take into cognizance the various degrees of effort put in by a worker. Furthermore, the
notion that certain rewards can induce workers to commit more efforts so as to attain the reward,
but disregard the possibility that those rewards in question may have an adverse effect on the
worker. For instance an increase in salary may cause the worker higher taxes (Porter & Lawler,
1968).
It is also claimed that the simple nature of this theory is misleading because of the assumptions
that if a manager offers a reward, like monetary increments or advancement, appealing enough to
workers, they will raise their productivity levels to get the reward. Oliver (1974) viewed that this
would only work if workers are certain that such rewards can satisfy their needs. For instance, a
two dollar increment in pay may not be appealing to workers if the increment drives them to a
higher tax bracket making them believe that their total pay in actual terms have decreased. Equally,
an advancement that offers a higher status but entails longer hours at work might be a restraining
factor to workers who value their evenings and weekends with their family.
According to Stone & Henry (2003) the value of this theory from a manager’s viewpoint is
dependent on the manager’s ability to make an assumption on the motivational strength of the
reward in terms of how appealing and valuable it is for the workers. Therefore, it is imperative that
use of rewards comply with the law of Effect where:
i. Positively rewarded performances will tend to increase in frequency.
ii. Negatively rewarded performances will tend to reduce in frequency.
iii. The nature of the reinforcements as well as its timing will influence the frequency of the
performance.

44
Relevance of the theory
Vroom's theoretical model finds application in driving worker productivity via motivation. The
board of an organization can relate positive valence of workers to higher performances, and make
sure that the relationship is properly communicated to workers.
Managers, in numerous ways including mental tests or counseling, can comprehend the sort of
rewards workers find appealing which may be intrinsic rewards or extrinsic rewards, and can make
appropriate changes in compensating them. To protect expectations, managers can ascertain the
resources, kinds of training and level of supervision required. Also, managers need to make sure
that the organization fulfills its promises concerning rewards and create that consciousness that the
organization constantly fulfills its promises. This may call for a change in the organization’s
culture to improve communication and transparency.

However, this theory is very relevant to organizations because it does not only identify the reasons
an employee performs his/her job but also gives employers and managers an insight on why they
perform their jobs at certain levels. For example, the motive or motivation for showing up to work
and finishing assigned jobs is a steady paycheck. On the other hand, this theory can give detailed
information as to the reasons workers choose to maintain perfect attendance and carry out their
duties while producing high quality performances. The reasons behind the expectations of workers
who give thought to their manager’s responses to high level performances or high productivity
levels is the need for positive evaluation or advancement.

2.3 Empirical Framework

Various studies have examined the effect of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on a workers’
performance and productivity levels. Also most of these studies have obtained different results
from their analysis. For instance, Rewards that an individual receives be it intrinsic or extrinsic are
very essential in understanding the concept of motivation. Previous studies have proposed that
rewards leads to fulfillment and can affect a worker' to be affected, which directly influences the
performance as well as productivity levels of the employee. Lawler (1968) stated that certain
elements affect worker’s productivity levels in relation to their jobs. First, productivity is
dependent on the amount of monetary or non-monetary benefits they actually receive as opposed
to the amount they feel they deserve. Also, evaluating what other workers receive in comparison
to their own affects their individual performances, while the worker’s contentment with both

45
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards acquired has an effect on overall work performance and productivity
levels. Furthermore, workers vary largely in the rewards they crave and the degree of value they
attribute to each reward. Finally, it is observed that extrinsic rewards tend to please workers more
than intrinsic because they lead to the achievement of other rewards. As such, these observations
propose the necessity for a diverse reward system.
The research carried out by lin (2007) on the assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on
employee productivity, The results gotten from the examination revealed that there was a
significant correlation between extrinsic motivation and the productivity level of the workers,
while that of intrinsic motivation was statistically less significant than extrinsic even though a
correlation also existed between intrinsic factors and workers’ productivity levels. As a result,
implications of the findings for future study were stated.

Jibowo (|2007) in the study; motivation and workplace productivity amongst workers basically
assumed the similar methods as (Herzberg, 2000). The study shows some supports for the impact
of motivation on productivity. However more value was placed on extrinsic factors than intrinsic.
Another research by Centres and Bugental (2007), also based their inquiry on Herzberg’s two-
factor theory of motivation, which divided job variables into several groups: hygiene factors and
motivators. They utilized a population of 692 participants to test the rationality of the theory on
worker effectiveness and efficiency levels. It was revealed that at higher professional levels,
motivators or Intrinsic job elements were more appreciated, while at lower occupational levels
hygiene factors or extrinsic job elements were more appreciated. As a result, they concluded that
organizations that fulfills both intrinsic and extrinsic elements influencing employees’ behavior
are able to gain the best out of them.

Also Taylor and Vest (1992) investigated the effect of financial incentives and its removal on
workers performance and productivity; it revealed that participants in the experimental group who
received personal inducements performed better than those in the control group. Assam (2002)
also examined the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on productivity among Nigerian
workers, it showed that using a sample of employees of high and low professional levels. The
assumption that low income employees will be inherently motivated and highly productive was
not validated, and the assumption that higher incomes employees will place great values on

46
intrinsic motivational elements than low income employees was also not validated. This explicitly
illustrates the degree of value workers place on extrinsic motivational elements even in the absence
of any significant change in motivational levels across various classes of employees in the
organization.
(Baase, 2009) perceived that poor compensation is linked to the profitability of an organization.
Wage differences amongst high and low salary recipients was linked to the loss of morale, lack of
commitment and low productivity. Also Nwachukwu (2004) attributed the decline in productivity
levels of employees on some elements, amongst them is a company’s failure to cater for the well-
being of their staff, provide adequate compensation, training and career development, adequate
working conditions, suitable working environment and failure to promote cordial relationships
amongst co-workers, managers and their organizations which is very demoralizing to the
workforce leading to reduced their levels of productivity.
An investigation which is of importance to this research, is that carried out by (Lake, 2000). He
Studied the relationship between motivation and job effectiveness of various workers taking into
account their attitudes to the job in question. The study concluded that most workers placed more
importance on extrinsic factors than intrinsic factors citing the need to satisfy other needs as a
major criteria for their choice. He also noted that majority of the research participants cited poor
work environment, inadequate working conditions and a lack of resources as factors affecting
worker efficiency levels in most organizations.
Also, in a similar research, (Akerele, 2001) equated the comparative position of ten motivational
tools such as pay, training, security, etc. considered external to the job, and other internal factors
like employee well-being, good relationships with managers, responsibility etc. among 80
employees of an organization. It was assumed that greater value will be put on internal rather than
external job factors. However, findings failed to validate the assumption as it was revealed that
two extrinsic factors sufficient compensation and job safety were rated as the most important tools.
The above are practical works undertaken by various scholars in the area of motivation and
productivity. Based on these empirical examinations and conclusions, one may possibly deduce
that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors are very essential in improving workers
productivity levels in the workplace. As such an individual’s performance levels, can be expected
to result in higher productivity if the right motivational tools are put in place.

47
However, the question is “to what extent can motivation be it extrinsic or intrinsic induce
productivity levels taking into deliberation the arguments for and arguments against the fact that
motivation as a concept is complex and relative to individuals.
2.4 Gaps in Literature
Despite the increasing effects of motivation on employee productivity, there is still limited
literature on its effect in developing countries (Ofori & Aryeetey 2011). This is because while a
lot has been documented about the concept of motivation in advanced nations, most works related
to motivation in areas concerning productivity in less industrialized nations are hardly found. In
addition, it was observed that very little information was provided on intrinsic motivational factors
such as relationship with co-workers and managers as it relates to productivity while excess
information was provided with regards to extrinsic motivational factors.
The existing studies in this relation (Lawler 1968; Lin 2007, Centres & Bugental 2007;
Nwachukwu 2004; Baase 2009; Akerele 2001; Jibowo 2007; Taylor & Vest 1992; Assam 2002)
amongst others have taken a general focus on performance creating a gap on issues related to
productivity. Also, related studies in developing countries have failed to consider the
manufacturing industries in Nigeria.
Finally it was observed that very few examinations have been conducted in the aspect of workforce
motivation with respect to manufacturing industries in Nigeria. This study while validating some
empirical works has bridged the gap between existing literatures by providing evidence on the
effect of workplace motivation on employee productivity in manufacturing industries.

2.5 Summary of the Chapter

Although the concept of motivation is extensively recognized as an important tool in attaining high
employee and organizational performance and productivity levels, it is however very complex,
relative and unique to members of a workforce. This is to say that what motivates or appeals to
one individual may in no way appeal to another because people differ in terms of wants and needs.
Therefore, it is imperative for organizations, employers and their managers to display positive
disposition in applying the concept of motivation in order to elicit reciprocal positive gestures,
behaviors and high levels of performance and productivity from the members of its workforce.

48
Organizational productivity can be enhanced through motivational factors be it intrinsic or
extrinsic in nature but the right mix of both factors is essential as no one factor should be
underestimated or should one gain preference over the other.
Intrinsic motivational factors are in every way as important as extrinsic motivational factors as
such managers must strive to continually deliver a unique mix of value to ensure that the members
of its workforce are and stay highly motivated. This is because as motivation increases chances
are that productivity will also increase. Therefore an employee’s welfare in terms of well-being,
compensation, relationships with co-workers as well as managers, training and development and
also work environment should not be taken for granted as far as productivity is concerned.
Managers should seek to ensure that employees are extrinsically well motivated with a view to
ensuring they remain intrinsically attached to their jobs. It is therefore necessary for organizations
and businesses alike to understand that employees are also as important as its customer base and
are an asset to the survival of any given business enterprise.
Also, it is imperative to understand that the theories being discussed in this research that is
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, Herzberg’s two-factor theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory
may have been validated in some literatures and also have been extensively criticized in others for
various reasons. However they are still applicable in the present more complicated and diverse
work environment. Although a most empirical works have for one reason or the other invalidated
these theories, they should not be dismissed but rather should be viewed as a simple model that
has successfully made a substantial addition to the field of motivation and has broadened our
knowledge of a worker’s approach towards the job. Also it has provided or laid the groundwork
for potential researchers who may wish to continually form new and better principles of job
satisfaction and workforce motivation.
(Smerek & Peterson, 2007) stated that testing a theory may not always be the best approach to
determining its worth. This is because theories that endure the test of time, incorporates itself into
basic perceptions about managing humans, and continues to generate ideas for potential
researchers and intellectuals are theories that have proven their worth. The hierarchy of needs,
two-factor and expectancy theories all belong in this category
Finally, this review of empirical studies will be concluded with the position of (Davies, 2000),
which suggests that motivation both intrinsic and extrinsic have a significant effect on workers

49
productivity and performance levels as such vital to the growth, stability, development and success
of any organization.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the systematic approach for solving the research problem in the study and
highlights the instruments and techniques used to seek solutions to the research problem. It consists
of the research design, sample population, sample frame, sample size determination, sampling
techniques, research instruments, validity and reliability of research instruments and methods of
data analysis. The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of employee motivation on
organizational productivity. The May & Baker Plc Ota, Ogun state was the only selected
organization used as a study in this research.

3.1 Research Design

Coopers and Schindler (2006) suggested that the research design is the structure of investigation
aimed at identifying variables and their relationships to one another. It refers to the blue print, plan
and guidelines utilized in data analysis with respect to the study. It is a necessary step required in
a research process if research problems and hypothesis are to be adequately addressed. Descriptive
research design and causal research design as well as the survey method was used. Descriptive
research design was used to describe some phenomena because it aids a researcher in gathering,
50
summarizing, presenting and interpreting information for the purpose of clarification while the
causal research design was used to describe the effect of one variable on another that is establish
cause and effect relationship (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). The researcher also utilized the survey
strategy for this study because it creates room for gathering large amounts of data from a sizeable
population in a cost-effective way (Osuagwu, 2006).

3.2 Population of the Study

The study population was 475 staff of the May & Baker Plc. The research instrument would be
surveyed on the workforce of the organization considering the fact that they all fall under the
category of employees within an organization (Osuagwu, 2006; Ngechu, 2006).

3.3 Sample Frame

This is the list of all the workers used as a representative of the population in a study. It refers to a
collection of all the items that constitute a population from which a sample is drawn (Mugenda &
Mugenda, 2003). In this research, the sample frame is the list of employees of the May & Baker
Plc.

3.4 Determination of Sample Size

Sampling is concerned with the choice of a subgroup of individuals from the target population in
order to enable the estimation of the characteristics of the entire population (Singh and Masuku,
2014). It is vital to use an adequate number of subjects so as to ensure a higher probability that
results of the study will be more generalizable and interpretable (Mugenda, 2008).

The sample size was calculated using the “sample size determining for research activity table” by
(Krejcie and Morgan, 1970). In estimating the sample size, a 5 percent margin of error (confidence
interval) and 95 percent confidence level was used. The sample size for the study therefore is two
hundred and seventeen (217) for a sample population of four hundred and seventy five (475)

3.5 The Sampling Technique

51
The stratified random sampling was utilized in this study. This was done by segmenting the
workers based on their job status ranging from senior staff, junior staff, contract and casual
workers. This technique is appropriate in order to ensure that every element in the sampling frame
has an equal opportunity of being selected (Eshiteti, Okaka, Maragia, Odera & Akerele, 2013, Oladipo
& AbdulKadir, 2011; Singh & Masuku, 2014).

3.6 Sources of Data Collection

Data collection involves gathering of relevant and important data used for conducting a particular
research work. It is the basis for acquiring data. Data can be collected in two ways which are;
primary data and secondary data.

Primary source of data was used for gathering data in this research work. It is the data collected
for the purpose of the research, these are the responses generated or obtained from administered
questionnaires (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003).

The questionnaire research instrument was used in this research work to gather information
because it helps to access a large number of respondents at a minimal cost. The data collected
would be gathered, sorted, and analyzed with the use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

3.7 Instrument for Data Collection

The instrument used for data collection for in this study is the questionnaire, the questionnaires
were self-administered. A questionnaire is a structured or semi structured instrument, an array of
questions to be answered by persons in order to provide information for a specific purpose. The
questionnaire is structured about the research objectives, the research questions and the research
hypotheses (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). For the purpose of this research, the questionnaire
was based on close-ended questions aimed at generating brief and specific answers from the
participants. The questionnaire was adopted and modified based on the study of Adeniji, (2011);
Kibui, Gachunga, & Namusonge, (2014) and McAllister (1995).

The questionnaire used for this study consists of three sections. Section A was based on the
respondents’ bio-data using five items, section B contained 30 statements concerning workplace
motivation and section C contained 10 statements about employee productivity. Five-point Likert

52
scale (5-Strongly Agreed, 4- Agree, 3-Undecided, 2- Disagree, 1- Strongly Disagree) that best
describes the extent to which the respondents agree with each items in the questionnaire was used.

3.8 Validity of Research Instrument

The validity of test reveals the degree to which a measuring instrument measures what it is intended
to measure Norland (1990). He stated that the accuracy and significance of inferences are based
on research results. The validity of the research instrument is determined by the amount of build
in error in measurement.

Copies of the survey were made accessible to experts in this study such as my supervisor for
comments and opinions so as to create validity in terms of contrast, content, criterion and
readability in order for it to be suitable for the objectives of the study. Areas that are not needed
where removed and other areas where collected and added to the research .Also areas considered
irrelevant to the study were removed while others were collected and added to the research work.

Content and face validity was used in determining the validity of the research. Content validity is
the extent to which a measuring instrument provides suitable coverage for current study that is
research items measure the variables of the study while face validity is face to face check. The
validity of the research instrument is to be gotten from the various questions posed to the
respondents (Ojo, 2003).

3.9 Reliability of Research Instrument

Reliability is the degree to which a measurement is consistent with similar results over time.
Measurements can be reliable and yet not useful but if measurements are useful or valid, it is
certainly reliable. Also measurements that lack reliability also lacks validity. Reliable
measurements show stability when tests are repeated with similar outcomes (Ojo, 2003).

Reliability of the research instrument involves the consistency of the result obtained with the
instrument and if the instrument gives similar, close or the same result if the study is repeated
under the same assumptions (Osuagwu, 2006). For Cronbach’s alpha test; this is relating each
measurement item with the other measurement item so as to obtain the average inter relationship
for all the paired associations. Cronbach’s alpha method of reliability is for measuring the
reliability of this research work (Ojo, 2003). The literature reveals that acceptable reliability should

53
fall between 0.70 and above, however 0.60 may be acceptable. A high value of Cronbach’s alpha
test means that the stability, reliability and certainty of the instrument used in measurement is very
assured (Singh & Masuku, 2014). The reliability score of the construct yielded a Cronbach’s alpha
of r=0.868 as shown below in the table below.

Table 3.9.1: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha No of Items
.868 45

3.10 Method of Data Presentation and Analysis

For the analysis of data, the statistical package for social sciences (spss) was used. The statistical
tools used to analyze the data include the following: descriptive analysis using frequency tables
and percentages. Also, simple linear and multiple regression analysis in respect to the study
hypothesis was used to measure the degree of the effects of independent variables on the dependent
or outcome variables. Another statistic called R-square would be calculated based on the
percentage of variations in the dependent variable that can be explained by the independent
variable.

After distributing the questionnaires, data would be collected, coded and analyzed through the use
of the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Regression analysis and descriptive statistics
would be used to validate the data. Furthermore, distribution tables and frequency and percentages
would be used for data interpretation. Also a master data sheet will be prepared with the use of the
SPSS. Finally findings associated with the study were discussed in chapter 4.

3.11 Ethical Considerations

i. Management of the school and department were informed through a letter of introduction
to the respondents
ii. Oral consent was sought officially by the researcher from the human resource manager of
the organization

54
iii. Researcher ensued confidentiality and privacy of participants information
iv. The researcher avoided the use of deceptive statement and questions during the course of
the research
v. The researcher ensured that participants were not coerced but participated willingly.
vi. The researcher also ensured that no form of injury physical or mental affected the
participants

55
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Introduction
This chapter provides a detailed analysis of data collected from field survey via the administration
of questionnaire. The questionnaire comprises of three sections; A, B AND C. While section ‘A’
contains five (5) questions on the demographics of the respondents such as sex, age, education,
marital status and job status, section ‘B’ contains thirty (30) questions on the aspect of motivation
and section ‘C’ contains questions on productivity measures.
A total of 217 questionnaire were distributed to employees of the MAY & BAKER PLC Ota out
of which one hundred and eighty five (185), representing about 85.4% of the respondents were
returned properly and adequately completed. The data collected from the respondents via
questionnaire were classified, organized and analyzed using the statistical package for social
sciences SPSS as presented below:

4.1 General Response Rate

Altogether, 217 copies of questionnaire were administered to the staff of MAY & BAKER through
the random sampling technique, a total of 185 questionnaires were retrieved properly and
adequately completed. Thus, this represents a response rate of 85.4%. All fully completed and
retrieved 185 questionnaire were used in the analysis of this study.
4.2. Socio-demographic Profile of the Respondents
This section shows the reported demographic profile of the sample, showing distribution in terms
of gender, age, academic qualification, marital status and job status.
TABLE 4.2.1: Demographic Profile
Demographic Characteristics No of Percentage
Respondents
Gender
Male 105 56.8
Female 80 43.2
Total 185 100%

56
 Age
Below 30 years 63 34.1
31 – 40 years 59 31.9
41 - 50 years 38 20.5
Above 50 years 25 13.5
Total 185 100%
Marital status
Single 73 39.5
Married 104 56.2
Divorced 8 4.3
Total 185 100%
Educational Status
O’Level 8 4.3
NCE/OND 78 42.2
HND/B.SC 54 29.2
Postgraduate Degree 45 24.3
Total 185 100%
Job Status
Senior Staff 48 25.9
Junior Staff 74 40.0
Contract Staff 29 15.7
Casual Staff 34 18.4
Total 185 100%
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)
The table above shows the gender, age, marital, educational and job status distribution, of the
sample population. It shows that 105 out of the total questionnaires returned were male
representing 56.8% of the total sample size while 80 were female representing 43.2% of the total
sample size. From the above analysis, it can be inferred that majority of the respondents were
males. Also a large number of the respondents are below 30 years of age, specifically 63, and this
represents 34.1% of the total sample followed by 59 respondents in the age bracket of 31-40 which
represents 31.9% of the total sample. 38 respondents are in the age bracket of 41-50 making up

57
20.5% of the total sample while 25 respondents are above 50 years of age representing just 13.5%
of the total sample size. The table also presented information on the educational status of the
respondents. It shows that 78 respondents have an NCE/OND degree making up 42.2% of the total
respondents. 54 respondents have a Bachelor’s degree representing 29.2% of the total respondents.
45 respondents have a postgraduate degree representing 24.3% of the total respondents. 8
respondents have an O’ Level certificate making up 4.3% of the total respondents. It is vivid that
majority of the respondents have a Bachelor’s degree as their highest academic qualification.
Furthermore, regarding the marital status of the sample population. It shows that 104 respondents
are married, representing 56.2% of the sample population which is clearly the largest. 73
respondents are single and this represents 39.5% of the total respondents. Only 8 respondents are
divorced and this represents 4.3% of the total sample size. It can thus be inferred that majority of
the respondents are married. Finally, the greatest number of respondents are junior staffs
representing 40% of the total respondents. 48 respondents are senior staffs making up 25.9% while
casual staff 34 and contract staffs 29 make up 18.4% and 15.7% respectively.

4.3: Descriptive Analysis of Data on Relevant Variables

This section focuses on the responses of the respondents to statements concerning workplace
motivation and employee productivity. Respondents indicated whether they “strongly agree”,
“agree”, “Undecided”, “disagree”, or “strongly disagree” with the statements provided. Below are
the statements and the tables showing the frequency and percentage distribution of responses along
with their interpretations.

58
 Table 4.3.1: Employee Well-being of the Workers
S/NO EMPLOYEE SA A N D SD x̅ σ²
WELL-BEING % % % % %
Q1 I am okay with my present
working conditions 4.3 13.0 30.8 43.2 8.6 2.61 .967

Q2 Work pressure puts stress

on me 10.8 21.1 49.2 14.6 4.3 3.19 .964

Q3 I feel safe at work

2.2 39.5 36.8 17.3 4.3 3.18 .894

Q4 The company provides me

with adequate leave and 4.3 16.8 27.0 43.2 8.6 2.65 1.000
holiday period
Q5 My company does a lot as
regards the health and 2.2 21.6 28.1 45.9 2.2 2.76 .891
safety of its employees
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)

TABLE 4.3.1: describes the responses of participants as regards the well-being of employees.

In Q1, the table shows that majority of the respondents, precisely 80(43.2%) disagree with the
statement. Also a significant number of the respondents specifically 57(30.8%) were neutral while
24(13.0%) respondents tend to agree with the statement. 16(8.3%) of the respondents strongly
disagree as opposed to the remaining 8(4.3%) who strongly agree with the statement. The
implication of the mean at 2.61 indicates that most of the respondents are inclined towards
disagree.

In Q2, a vast number of the respondents 91(49.2%) are neutral while 39(21.1%) agree with the
statement. Also 20(10.8%) of the respondents strongly agree while 27(14.6%) disagree with the
statement. Only 8(4.3%) of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement. The implication
of the mean at 3.19 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

59
In Q3, a greater number of the respondents 73(39.5%) elected to agree with the statement.
Although 68(36.8%) of the workforce were neutral, 32(17.3%) of the respondents disagree while
8(4.3%) strongly disagrees with the statement. Only 4(2.2%) of the workforce strongly agree with
the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.18 indicates that most of the respondents are
leaning towards agree.

In Q4, Majority of the respondents, precisely 80(43.2%) of the workforce tend to disagree with the
statement while 50(27%) of the respondents are neutral. 31(16.8%) tends to agree with the
statement while 16(8.6%) of the workforce strongly disagree with the statement. Only 8(4.3%) of
the workforce tend to strongly agree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 2.65
indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards disagree.

Finally in Q5, 85 respondents constituting a majority of 45.9% disagree with the statement while
52(28.1%) are neutral. Also 40(21.6%) of the workforce agree with the statement. Of the 8
respondents remaining, 4 respondents tend to strongly agree while the other 4 strongly disagree
with the statement each making up 2.2% of the entire workforce. The implication of the mean at
2.76 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards disagree.

60
 Table 4.3.2: Employee relationship with co-workers

S/NO RELATIONSHIP WITH SA A N D SD x̅ σ²

CO-WORKERS % % % % %
Q1 My R-ship with my co-
workers is strictly 10.3 21.6 43.2 16.2 8.6 3.09 1.065
professional
Q2 I enjoy working with my
co-workers 21.1 64.3 13.0 1.6 0 4.05 .637

Q3 I enjoy a friendly
relationship with my co- 18.4 56.8 18.9 3.8 2.2 3.85 .838
workers outside of work
Q4 My company organizes
social functions and get 4.3 27.0 45.4 23.2 0 3.12 .815
together parties for all
staff
Q5 My company does a lot
to improve the 2.2 27.0 51.4 19.5 0 3.12 .735
relationship amongst all
staff
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2016)

Table 4.3.2 describes the responses relating to relationships that exists among co-workers of the
organization

In Q1, This table shows that a great number specifically 80 of the respondents constituting 43.2%
of the workforce are neutral about the statement. Another 40 (21.6%) of the respondents tend to
agree with the statement. Also 30 (16.2%) of the respondents disagree with the statement while
16 respondents (8.6%) of the workforce strongly disagree. Only 19 (10.3%) of the entire workforce
strongly agree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.09 indicates that most of the
respondents are leaning towards agree.

61
In Q2, The table also shows that most of the respondents 119 (64.3%) agree with the statement.
Furthermore 39 (21.1%) of the respondents strongly agree with the statement. Although 24(13%)
of the respondents were neutral, the remaining 3(1.6%) of the workforce disagree with the
statement. No respondent strongly disagrees with the statement. The implication of the mean at
4.05 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning strongly towards agree.

Most workers 105(56.8%) of the respondents agree with the statement in Q3 while 35(18.9%) are
neutral. Also 34(18.4%) of the respondents strongly agree with the statement while 7(3.8%)
disagree. Only 4(2.2%) strongly disagrees with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.85
indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

Results from the table shows that 84(45.4%) of the respondents are neutral about the statement in
Q4. 50(27%) agree with the statement, 43(23.2%) disagree while 8(4.3%) of the respondents
strongly agree with the statement. None of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement.
The implication of the mean at 3.12 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards
agree.

In Q5, Majority that is 95(51.4%) of the respondents are neutral while 50(27%) tend to agree with
the statement. Also 36(19.5%) disagree with the statement while the remaining 4(2.2%) strongly
agree. None of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean
at 3.12 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

62
 Table 4.3.3: Employee relationship with Managers

S/NO RELATIONSHIP SA A N D SD x̅ σ²
WITH MANAGERS % % % % %
Q1 My relationship with
my managers is strictly 21.1 30.3 44.9 3.8 0 3.69 .846
professional
Q2 My manager criticizes
me when I fail to meet 27.6 65.4 7.0 0 0 4.21 .553
expectations
Q3 I receive credit or
praise from my 16.2 63.8 20.0 0 0 3.96 .602
manager when I meet
or exceed expectations
Q4 My manager involves
me in decision making 8.1 34.6 40.5 10.3 6.5 3.28 .981
processes
Q5 I enjoy a friendly
relationship with my 1.6 23.2 40.0 20.0 (15.1%) 2.76 1.026
manager outside of
work
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)

Figure 4.3.3 describes the frequency and percentage of responses as regards relationships with
their managers

The table indicates that in Q1, a high number of respondents that is 83(44.9%) are neutral while
56(30.3%) tend to agree with the statement. 39(21.1%) strongly agree with the statement and
7(3.8%) disagree with the statement. None of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement.
The implication of the mean at 3.69 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards
agree.

63
Majority of the respondents 121(65.4%) agrees with the statement in Q2, 51(27.6%) strongly agree
and 13(7%) are neutral. None of the respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.
The implication of the mean at 4.21 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards
agree.

A great number of the respondents in Q3 that is 118(63.8%) agree with the statement, 37(20%)
were neutral while 30(16.2%) strongly agree with the statement. None of the respondents disagree
or strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.96 indicates that most of
the respondents are leaning towards agree.

Most of the respondents in Q4 which comprises 75(40.5%) are neutral about the statement,
64(34.6%) agree with the statement while 19(10.3%) disagree with the statement. Only 15(8.1%)
strongly agree with the statement leaving 12(6.5%) who strongly disagree. The implication of the
mean at 3.28 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

Finally 74(40%) of the respondents are neutral or undecided about the statement in Q5. 43(23.2%)
agree, 32(20%) tends to disagree while 28(15.1%) strongly disagree and only 3(1.6%) strongly
agrees with the statement. The implication of the mean at 2.76 indicates that most of the
respondents are leaning towards disagree.

64
 Table 4.3.4: Employee responses regarding Work environment

S/NO WORK SA A N D SD x̅ σ²
ENVIRONMENT
% % % % %

Q1 I enjoy a conducive 4.3 15.1 45.9 28.1 6.5 2.83 .916

and friendly work
environment

Q2 My company does a lot 2.2 21.6 52.4 21.6 2.2 3.00 .780
to improve the work
environment
Q3 I enjoy a certain level 5.9 40.0 33.5 18.4 2.2 3.29 .910
of autonomy in
discharging my duties
Q4 My company 8.6 27.0 44.9 19.5 0 3.25 .868
organizes routine
safety environmental
programs
Q5 My office is spacious 0 15.1 33.0 37.3 14.6 2.49 .921
and comfortable

Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)

Figure 4.3.4 shows the frequency and percentages of responses in regards to work environment

The table above shows that most of the respondents that is 85(45.9%) are neutral about the
statement in Q1. 52(28.1%) disagree with this statement, 28(15.1%) agree with the statement while
12(6.5%) strongly disagree with the statement as opposed to 8(4.3%) who strongly agree with the
statement. The implication of the mean at 2.83 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning
towards disagree.

In Q2, 97(52.9%) of the respondents are neutral about the statement. 40(21.6%) of the respondents
agree with the statement as opposed to another 40(21.6%) of respondents who disagree with the

65
statement. Of the remaining 8 respondents 4(2.2%) strongly agree with the statement while the
other 4(2.2%) strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.00 indicates
that most of the respondents are leaning towards neutral.

Majority of the respondents in Q3 comprising 74(40%) tends to agree with the statement.
62(33.5%) indicated that they were neutral while 34(18.4%) disagree with the statement. The rest
comprising 11(5.9%) and 4(2.2%) strongly agree and strongly disagree with the statement
respectively. The implication of the mean at 3.29 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning
towards agree.

In Q4, a great number of the respondents precisely 83(44.9%) are neutral about the statement.
50(27%) tends to agree with the statement while 36(19.5%) disagree. Only 16(8.6%) strongly
agrees with the statement. None of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement. The
implication of the mean at 3.25 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

Finally, in Q5 the highest number of respondents 69(37.3%) appeared to disagree with the
statement. Another 61(33%) were neutral while 28(15.1%) agreed with the statement. The
remaining 27(14.6%) strongly disagree with the statement meanwhile none of the respondents
strongly agree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 2.49 indicates that most of the
respondents are leaning towards agree.

66
 Table 4.3.5: Employee responses regarding Compensation

S/NO COMPENSATION SA A N D SD x̅ σ²

% % % % %

Q1 My company pays 2.2 27.6 29.2 32.4 8.6 2.82 1.003

me well

Q2 I believe more 75.1 20.5 2.2 2.2 0 4.69 .625

incentives should be
included in my total
reward package
Q3 I am not satisfied 13.0 39.5 37.3 8.1 2.2 3.53 .897
with my current pay

Q4 I prefer in-kind 33.0 3.8 2.2 18.9 42.2 2.66 1.771

rewards to cash
rewards
Q5 I receive allowances 11.9 19.5 38.4 30.3 0 2.13 .980
for special duties
and overtime on the
job
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)

Figure 4.3.5 shows the frequency and percentages of workers responses as regards compensation
of workers

The table shows that in Q1 most of the respondents 60(32.4%) tend to disagree with the statement.
54(29.2%) are neutral while 51(27.6%) agree with the statement. Only 16(8.6%) of the respondents
strongly disagree as opposed to 4(2.2%) who strongly agree with the statement. The implication
of the mean at 2.82 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards disagree.

In Q2, a great number of the respondents precisely 139(75.1%) strongly agree with the statement.
Another 38(20.5%) also agree with the statement. Of the remaining 8 respondents 4(2.2%) are

67
neutral while the other 4(2.2%) disagree with the statement, none of the respondents strongly
disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 4.69 indicates that most of the
respondents are leaning strongly towards agree.

In Q3, majority of the respondents specifically 73(39.5%) of the workforce agree with the
statement. 69(37.3%) are neutral while 24(13.0%) strongly agree with the statement. Also
15(8.1%) of the respondents as well as 4(2.2%) tends to disagree and strongly disagree with the
statement respectively. The implication of the mean at 3.53 indicates that most of the respondents
are leaning towards agree.

The table also shows in Q4 that the highest number of respondents precisely 78(42.2%) of the
respondents strongly disagree with the statement as opposed to 61(33.0%) who strongly agree with
the statement. Also it shows that 35(18.9%) of the workforce disagree while 7(3.8%) agree with
the statement. Only 4(2.2%) are neutral. The implication of the mean at 2.66 indicates that most
of the respondents are leaning towards disagree.

Finally in Q5, most respondents 71(38.4%) are neutral about the statement. 56(30.3%) disagree,
36(19.5%) agree while 22(11.9%) strongly agree with the statement. None of the respondents
strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.12 indicates that most of
the respondents are leaning towards disagree.

68
 Table 4.3.6: Training and Career Development of Workers

S/NO TRAINING/CAREER SA A N D SD x̅ σ²
DEVELOPMENT
% % % % %

Q1 My company has a 9.7 63.8 22.2 2.2 2.2 3.77 .741

training and
development policy
applicable to all
employees
Q2 I have attended skill 8.1 30.3 30.3 27.0 4.3 3.11 1.032
acquisition programs
sponsored by the
company
Q3 Supervisors support the 10.3 33.0 45.9 8.6 2.2 3.41 .868
use of techniques learnt
in training that
employees bring back to
their jobs
Q4 My company links 18.9 44.9 29.7 6.5 0 3.76 .833
training and
development with its
business strategy
Q5 Employees who use their 8.1 25.9 57.8 6.5 1.6 3.32 .782
skills are given
preference for new
assignments
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)

Figure 4.3.6 shows the frequency and percentages of responses as regards training and career
development of workers

69
The table shows that in Q1 most of the respondents 118(63.8%) tend to agree with the statement.
41(22.2%) are neutral while 18(9.7%) strongly agree with the statement. Of the remaining 8
respondents 4(2.2%) disagree as opposed to 4(2.2%) who strongly disagree with the statement.
The implication of the mean at 3.77 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards
agree.

In Q2, 56(30.3%) of the respondents agree with the statement while another 56(30.3%) are neutral.
Of the remaining respondents 50(27%) disagree while the other 15(8.1%) strongly agree with the
statement. Only 8(4.3%) respondents strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the
mean at 3.11 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

In Q3, majority of the respondents specifically 85(45.9%) of the workforce are neutral. 61(33%)
agree while 19(10.3%) strongly agree with the statement. Also 16(8.6%) of the respondents as well
as 4(2.2%) tends to disagree and strongly disagree with the statement respectively. The implication
of the mean at 3.41 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

The table also shows in Q4 that the highest number of respondents precisely 83(44.9%) of the
respondents agree with the statement while 55(29.7%) are neutral. Also it shows that 35(18.9%)
of the workforce strongly agree while 12(6.5%) disagree with the statement. None of the
respondents strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.76 indicates
that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

Finally in Q5, most respondents 107(57.8%) are neutral about the statement. 48(25.9%) agree
while 15(8.1%) strongly agree as opposed to 12(6.5%) and 3(1.6%) who disagree and strongly
agree with the statement respectively. The implication of the mean at 3.32 indicates that most of
the respondents are leaning towards agree.

70
 Table 4.3.7: Effectiveness of the Workers

S/NO EFFECTIVENESS SA A N D SD x̅ σ²

% % % % %

Q1 Senior managers visibly 28.6 50.8 14.1 4.3 2.2 3.99 .894
demonstrate their
commitment to quality
by providing feedback
Q2 My company provides 20.5 47.6 27.6 2.2 2.2 3.82 .857
realistic and clearly
defined quality goals
Q3 My company does a lot 3.8 25.4 56.2 12.4 2.2 3.16 .770
to ensure that workload
is fair
Q4 I have the tools and 5.9 16.2 55.1 20.5 2.2 3.03 .833
resources to do my job
well
Q5 My supervisor is always 15.7 48.1 31.9 0 4.3 3.71 .885
impressed with the
results I get when he
assigns work to me
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)

Figure 4.3.7 shows the frequency and percentages of responses as regards the level of effectiveness
of the workers

The table above shows that most of the respondents that is 94(50.8%) agree with the statement in
Q1. Also 53(28.6%) strongly agree with this statement. 26(14.1%) are neutral while 8(4.3%)
disagree with the statement leaving 4(2.2%) who strongly agree with the statement. The
implication of the mean at 3.99 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards agree.

In Q2, 88(47.6%) of the respondents agree with the statement while 51(27.6%) of the respondents
are neutral. Also 38(20.5%) of the respondents strongly agree with the statement meanwhile of the
71
remaining 8 respondents 4(2.2%) disagree with the statement while the other 4(2.2%) strongly
disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.82 indicates that most of the
respondents are leaning towards agree.

Majority of the respondents in Q3 comprising 104(56.2%) indicated that they were neutral while
47(25.4%) tend to agree with the statement. Although 23(12.4%) disagree with the statement, the
rest comprising 7(3.8%) and 4(2.2%) strongly agree and strongly disagree with the statement
respectively. The implication of the mean at 3.16 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning
towards agree.

In Q4, a great number of the respondents precisely 102(55.1%) are neutral about the statement.
38(27%) however chose to disagree with the statement while 30(16.2%) agree. Also 11(5.9%)
strongly agrees with the statement while 4(2.2%) respondents strongly disagree with the statement.
The implication of the mean at 3.03 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning towards
agree.

Finally, in Q5 the highest number of respondents 89(48.1%) elected to agree with the statement.
59(31.9%) were neutral while 29(15.7%) strongly agreed with the statement. The remaining
8(4.3%) strongly disagree with the statement meanwhile none of the respondents disagreed with
the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.71 indicates that most of the respondents are
leaning towards agree.

72
 Table 4.3.8: Efficiency of the Workers

S/NO EFFICIENCY SA A N D SD x̅ σ²

% % % % %

Q1 My boss always praise 41.1 45.4 13.5 0 0 4.28 .687

me for completing tasks
assigned to me on
record time
Q2 My boss criticizes me 45.4 50.8 3.8 0 0 4.42 .566
for the waste of
resources allocated to
me while carrying out
certain assignments
Q3 My company provides 22.2 52.4 18.9 6.5 0 3.90 .815
me with a job schedule
to ensure time is
properly utilized
Q4 I often get my job done 55.1 44.9 0 0 0 4.55 .499
properly in good time at
the least cost possible
Q5 I am very prudent with 61.1 36.8 2.2 0 0 4.59 .536
company resources
because I am held
accountable
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Result (2017)

Figure 4.3.8 shows the frequency and percentages of responses as regards the level of efficiency
of the workers

The table above shows that most of the respondents that is 84(45.4%) agree with the statement in
Q1. Also 76(41.1%) of the respondents strongly agree while 25(13.5%) are neutral. None of the

73
respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean at 4.28
indicates that most of the respondents are leaning strongly towards agree.

In Q2, 94(50.8%) of the respondents agree with the statement. 84(45.4%) of the respondents
strongly agree with the statement while the remaining 7(3.8%) of the respondents are neutral. None
of the respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean
at 4.42 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning strongly towards agree.

Majority of the respondents in Q3 comprising 97(52.4%) tends to agree with the statement.
41(22.2%) strongly agree with the statement while 35(18.9%) indicated that they were neutral.
Only 12(6.5%) disagree with the statement. None of the respondents chose to strongly disagree
with the statement. The implication of the mean at 3.90 indicates that most of the respondents are
leaning towards agree.

In Q4, a great number of the respondents precisely 102(55.1%) appear to strongly agree with the
statement. 83(44.9%) also agrees with the statement. None of the respondents are neutral neither
did they choose to disagree nor strongly disagree with the statement. The implication of the mean
at 4.55 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning strongly towards agree.

Finally, in Q5 the highest number of respondents 113(61.1%) appeared to strongly agree with the
statement. 68(36.8%) of the respondents also agree with the statement leaving 4(2.2) of the
respondents neutral. None of the respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.
The implication of the mean at 4.59 indicates that most of the respondents are leaning strongly
towards agree.

4.4 Test of Hypothesis

Five (5) hypotheses were raised and tested using regression analysis in the course of this study. In
regression analysis, when the significant (sig) value is less than 0.05 for 95% confidence level or
less than 0.01 for 99% confidence level we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null
hypothesis and vice versa.

In order to test the hypothesis linear regression analysis was used.

1. Employee well-being has no significant effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker

74
Table 4.4.1a: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
.663a .440 .431 .37617
1

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Predictors: (Constant), Employee Well-being
Table 4.4.1a above revealed that there is a strong relationship at R = .663 between employee well-being and the
level of effectiveness of the worker. An examination of the table shows that R square = .440 which implies that
employee well-being accounts for 44% of variations having a significant effect on the level of effectiveness of
the worker.

Table 4.4.1b: ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 20.123 3 6.708 47.403 .000b

25.612 181 .142

1 Residual

45.735 184
Total

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness
b. Predictors: (Constant), Employee Well-being

Table 4.4.1b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (6.708) divided by the Mean
Square Residual (0.142), yielding F=47.403. From the results, the model in this table is statistically
significant (Sig =.000). Therefore, employee well-being is a significant predictor of effectiveness
at F (3,184) = 47.403.

75
Table 4.4.1c: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) .782 .236 3.309 .001

1
EW .230 .054 .266 4.272 .000

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness

The table above revealed the degree of influence of employee well-being on the effectiveness of
the worker and its level of significance. The statistical results is given as; (Employee Well-being;
β=.230; t=4.272; p<0.01). The statistical result implies that employee well-being is a statistically
significant predictor of effectiveness.

Linear Regression Model is given as Y = a + βX

Where Y = Effectiveness

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore Effectiveness = .782 + 0.230EW

Based on the results in the Anova table above, the significance level for all items are less than 0.01
therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis. That is, employee
well-being has a significant effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker.

76
 2. Relationship with managers have no significant effect on the level of efficiency of the
worker

Table 4.4.2a: Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .250a .063 .047 .45468

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Predictors: (Constant), Employee Relationship with Managers
Table 4.4.2a above revealed that there is a relationship at R = .250 between employee relationship
with managers and the level of efficiency of the worker. An examination of the table shows that
the R square = .063 which implies that employee relationship with managers accounts for only
6.3% of variations having a significant effect on the level of efficiency of the worker.
Table 4.4.2b: ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 2.503 3 .834 4.035 .008b

Residual 37.418 181 .207

1
39.921 184
Total

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: EFFICIENCY
b. Predictors: (Constant), Employee Relationship with Managers

Table 4.4.2b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (0.834) divided by the Mean
Square Residual (0.207), yielding F=4.035. The model in this table shows that employee
relationship with managers is statistically significant at (Sig =.008) and is a significant predictor
of efficiency at F (3,184) = 4.035.

77
Table 4.4.2c: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 3.638 .286 12.735 .000

1
.229 .093 .259 2.459 .015
RWM

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: Efficiency
The table above revealed the degree of influence of employee relationship with managers on the
efficiency of the worker and its level of significance. The statistical results is given as; (Employee
Relationship with Managers β =.019; t=.171; p>0.05). The statistical result implies that
relationship with managers is a statistically significant predictor of efficiency.

Linear Regression Model is given as Y = a + βX

Where Y = Efficiency

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore Efficiency = 3.638 + 0.019RWM

Based on the results in the Anova table above, the significance level for employee relationship
with managers is less than 0.01 therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null
hypothesis. That is employee relationship with managers have a significant effect on the level of
efficiency of the worker.

78
 3. Compensation has no significant effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker

Table 4.4.3a: Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .740a .548 .541 .33794

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Predictors: (Constant), Compensation

Table 4.4.3a above revealed that there is a relationship at R= .740 between compensation and the
level of effectiveness of the worker. An examination of the table shows that the R square = .548
which implies that compensation accounts for 54.8% of variations having a significant effect on
the level of effectiveness of the worker.

Table 4.4.3b: ANOVAa

Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Regression 25.064 3 8.355 73.155 .000b

Residual 20.671 181 .114

1
45.735 184
Total

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness
b. Predictors: (Constant), Compensation

Table 4.4.3b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (8.355) divided by the Mean
Square Residual (0.114), yielding F=73.155. The model reveals that compensation is statistically
significant at (Sig =.000) therefore it is a significant predictor of effectiveness at F (3,184) = 73.155.

79
Table 4.4.3c: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .806 .203 3.973 .000
1
COMP .146 .047 .161 3.118 .002

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness
The table above revealed the degree of influence compensation had on the effectiveness of the
worker and its level of significance. The statistical results is given as; (Compensation; β =.146;
t=3.118; p<0.05). The statistical result implies that compensation is a statistically significant
predictor of the level of effectiveness of the workers.

Linear Regression Model is given as Y = a + βX

Where Y = Effectiveness

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore Effectiveness = .806 + 0.146COMP

Based on the results in the Anova table above, the significant levels for compensation is less than
0.01 therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis. That is,
compensation has a significant effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker.

80
 4. Training and career development have no significant effect on the level of efficiency of the
worker

Table 4.4.4a Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .345a .339 .104 .44086

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Predictors: (Constant), Training and Career Development
Table 4.4.4a above revealed that there is a relationship at R= .345 between training and career
development and the level of efficiency of the worker. An examination of the table shows that the
R square = .119 which implies that training and career development accounts for only 33.9% of
variations having a significant effect on the level of efficiency of the worker.

Table 4.4.4b: ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 4.742 3 1.581 8.132 .000b

Residual 35.179 181 .194

1
39.921 184
Total

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: Efficiency
b. Predictors: (Constant), Training and Career Development

Table 4.4.4b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (1.581) divided by the Mean
Square Residual (0.194), yielding F=8.132. The table shows that training and career development
is statistically significant at (Sig =.000).Therefore it is a significant predictor of efficiency at F
(3,184) = 8.132.

81
 Table 4.4.4c: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
3.403 .265 12.859 .000
(Constant)
1
.258 .056 .340 4.589 .000
TCD

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: Efficiency

The table above revealed the degree of influence training and career development has on the
efficiency of the worker and its level of significance. The statistical result is given as (Training
and Career Development; β =.258; t=4.589; p<0.01). The statistical result implies that training and
career development is a significant predictor of the level of efficiency of the workers.

Linear Regression Model is given as Y = a + βX

Where Y = Efficiency

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore Efficiency = 3.403 + 0.258TCD

Based on the results in the Anova table above, the significant levels for training and career
development is less than 0.01 therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null
hypothesis. That is, training and career development has a significant effect on the level of
efficiency of the worker.

82
 5. Employee motivation is not a significant predictor of organizational productivity

Table 4.4.5a: Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .598a .358 .351 .32026

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Predictors: (Constant), Extrinsic Motivational Factors, Intrinsic Motivational Factors
Table 4.4.5a above revealed that there is a strong relationship at R= .598 between employee
motivation and the level of productivity of the workers. An examination of the table shows that R
square = .358 which implies that employee motivation accounts for only 35.8% of variations
having a significant effect on the level of productivity of the worker.

Table 4.4.5b: ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 10.392 2 5.196 50.658 .000b

1 Residual 18.667 182 .103

Total 29.059 184

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017

a. Dependent Variable: PRODUCTIVITY
b. Predictors: (Constant), Extrinsic motivational Factors, Intrinsic Motivational Factors

Table 4.4.5b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (5.196) divided by the Mean
Square Residual (0.103), yielding F=50.658. From the results, the model in this table is statistically
significant (Sig =.000).Therefore, employee motivation that is both intrinsic and extrinsic factors
combined are significant predictors of productivity at F (3,184) = 50.658.

83
 Table 4.4.5c: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.910 .206 9.283 .000

1 IMF .204 .075 .215 2.714 .007

EMF .425 .078 .433 5.465 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Productivity

Source: Author’s Computation, 2017
The table above revealed the degree of influence of both motivational factors on the level of
productivity of the workers and their levels of significance. The statistical results are as follows;
(Intrinsic Motivational Factors; β = .204 t=2.714; p<0.01, Extrinsic Motivational Factors; β =.425;
t=5.465; p<0.01). The statistical results imply that both employee intrinsic motivational factors
and extrinsic motivational factors are significant predictors of productivity however extrinsic
factors are more statistically significant.

Multiple Regression Model is given as Y = a + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3

Where Y = Productivity

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore Productivity = 1.910 + 0.204IMF + 0.425EMF

Based on the results from the Anova table above, the significant level for all items are less than
0.01. Therefore we accept the alternate hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis. That is, employee
motivation has a significant influence on organizational productivity. However it is important to
note that extrinsic motivational factors had a more significant effect on productivity than intrinsic
motivational factors.

84
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter comprises discussions associated with findings related to the various aspects of the
research. Theoretical Findings were discussed with respect to the theories used in this research
namely Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, Herzberg’s two-factor theory and Vroom’s
expectancy theory. .

5.1 Discussion of Findings

Here theoretical findings, empirical findings as well as findings based on the objectives of the
study were discussed respectively.
5.1.1 Theoretical Findings
i. The Abraham’s Maslow’s theory is validated by the findings of this research with respect
to the relationship between motivation and productivity. Although the theory has been
widely criticized, it is however significant and still very much applicable in today’s
business world.
ii. The theory establishes that for employees to be highly productive certain needs must be
fulfilled and even though it does not hold true or is not applicable in all settings it is
however relevant to managers who seek to get the best performances from their employees.
iii. These needs may vary individually in terms of priority ranging from basic needs to security
needs to belongingness needs amongst others. This is because when employees’ needs are
met over time they see the need to reciprocate the support of their organization by
increasing their productivity levels.
iv. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory is also substantiated by the findings of this study
despite the various criticisms levied at the theory.
v. The effects of motivational (intrinsic and extrinsic) factors such as work environment,
employee well-being, relationship with co-workers etc. on job satisfaction of workers
shows that in line with the Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory, employees who are
satisfied with their jobs tend to be extremely productive.

85
 vi. Hygiene factors are vital to avoid job dissatisfaction. This is because dissatisfaction would
result in low morale which would be evident in form of decreased productivity levels from
workers.
vii. Finally Vroom’s theory has also been validated because current research generally supports
the decision making concepts proposed by the theory which is seen as relevant or effective
in terms of improving worker’s productivity levels.
viii. The theory takes into consideration those factors that are reliant basically on the
employee’s perspective.
ix. However it poses a big challenge to managers as employees differ in terms of perspective
as such determining those motivational factors that employee’s desire may prove too costly
for the organization to fulfill therefore it has been criticized because it can be difficult to
implement in a group.
5.1.2 Empirical Findings
i. Most of the respondents in this study tend to disagree that the organization does a lot as
regards health and wellbeing of the employees. This is because most of the respondents are
not satisfied with their working conditions and feel that the organization does not provide
them with adequate leave and holiday periods. Also majority of the respondents also feel
that the organization does not take matters concerning employee health and safety
seriously.
ii. Majority of the respondents tend to agree that they enjoy good relationships with their
coworkers both within and outside the workplace. They also tend to agree that the company
organizes social functions to bring staff together thereby encouraging harmony amongst
employees.
iii. A great number of respondents also tend to agree that they enjoy good relationships with
their managers. This is because most of the respondents receive feedback in form of praise
and criticisms concerning assigned tasks and are also involved in decision making
processes in the organization. However they also claim that such relationships are strictly
professional as they do not enjoy friendly relationships outside the workplace with their
managers.
iv. As regards work environment, most respondents tend to disagree that their present working
conditions are okay and that their offices are spacious. However they tend to agree that the

86
 organization is doing a lot to improve the environment by organizing health and safety
environmental programs. Also most respondents claim to enjoy a certain level of autonomy
in discharging their duties.
v. In terms of compensation, a great number of respondents tend to disagree that the company
pays them well. They also prefer cash rewards to in-kind rewards and claim not to receive
allowances for special duties and overtime on the job. However they tend to agree that tend
to agree that more incentives should be included in their total reward package and that they
are currently satisfied with their current pay.
vi. As regards training and career development, most respondents tend to agree that the
company has a training and development policy applicable to all employees. Also they
claim to have attended skill acquisition programs sponsored by the company and that
supervisors support the use of techniques learnt in training that employees bring back to
the job.
vii. As regards effectiveness of workers, majority of the respondents tend to agree that
managers visibly demonstrate commitment to quality and that the company provides
realistic and clearly defined quality goals. They also claim that their workload is fair and
that they have the tools and resources to do their jobs well while evaluations are carried
out by supervisors based on the results they get from their jobs.
viii. In terms of efficiency of workers, a higher percentage of respondents tend to agree that the
organization provides them with a job schedule to ensure time is properly utilized and claim
to be held accountable for resources at their disposal. Also most respondents tend to agree
that their managers give them credit for completing tasks in record time as well as criticizes
them for the waste of resources. They also claim to get their jobs done properly in good
time at the least cost possible.

5.1.3 Discussion of Findings Based on objectives of the Study

The findings of this study are presented below in line with the objectives of the study:
Objective 1: To determine the effect of employee well-being on the level of effectiveness of the
workers.
The findings of this study are based on statistical data analyses and hypothesis testing. The
descriptive analysis of data collected revealed that the above stated employee well-being is a

87
significant predictor of effectiveness. Therefore, the alternate hypothesis which states that
employee well-being has a significant effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker is accepted
and the null hypothesis rejected.
These findings corroborate the findings of Lin (2013) in the research titled assessment of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation on employee productivity. Findings from the study revealed that intrinsic
factors like employee well-being and organizational policy have a significant effect on workers
effectiveness which is also a measure of productivity. This was further validated by Jibowo (2007)
establishing that intrinsic motivation is a significant predictor of employee effectiveness and plays
a major role in improving worker performance and productivity levels in an organization. He
further stated that managers should ensure that employee’s well-being is taken seriously and that
workers are extrinsically well rewarded to remain intrinsically committed to their jobs.

Objective 2: To determine the effect of employee relationship with managers on the level of
efficiency of the workers.
The findings from the study revealed that employee relationship with managers is a significant
predictor of worker efficiency as a measure of productivity. As such the alternate hypothesis which
states that employee relationship with managers has a significant effect on the level of efficiency
of the workers was accepted while the null was rejected. Findings also showed that it had a minimal
effect on the level of efficiency of the worker as such was not rated as highly as expected. This
could be due to the fact that other factors could also affect the efficiency of workers which may
not be intrinsic in nature. These factors could be extrinsic such as compensation, training and
career development etc. also it could be due to other intrinsic factors like organizational policies
which may not have been included in this study.
These findings agree with Centres and Bugental (2007) in their study of the relationship between
motivational factors and workers performance using the two factor theory where effectiveness and
efficiency were used as measures of performance. It was discovered that there was a significant
relationship between both intrinsic and extrinsic factors and worker efficiency levels. Taylor
(1992) further supported in his statement that extrinsic factors tend to be rated more highly than
intrinsic factors especially for those at lower levels of the organization. He further stated that
employees who enjoy friendly relationships with their co-workers both within and outside the
workplace tend to be very efficient at their jobs than those who don’t.

88
Objective 3: To examine the effect of compensation on the level of effectiveness of the workers.
The findings from the study reveals that compensation is a significant predictor of worker
effectiveness. As such the alternate hypothesis which states that compensation has a significant
effect on the level of effectiveness of the worker was accepted while the null was rejected. Findings
also showed that compensation was rated highly by the respondents and is believed to have a great
effect on the level of effectiveness of the workers. This could be due to the fact that extrinsic
factors especially monetary rewards tend to appeal more to workers especially in developing
nations where the standard of living is poor and basic amenities are lacking is seen as a way of
fulfilling other needs which intrinsic factors may not provide.

These findings correspond with the findings of Taylor & Vest (1992) in his research, which
investigated the influence of monetary incentives and its removal on workers performance and
productivity; it was observed that subjects in the experimental group who received monetary
incentives performed better than those who did not. Also (Assam, 2002) further pointed out in his
study that extrinsic factors like adequate compensation tend to positively influence the level of a
worker’s effectiveness much more than intrinsic factors.

Objective 4: To examine the effect of training and career development on the level of efficiency
of the workers.
The findings from the study revealed that training and career development is a significant predictor
of worker efficiency. As such the alternate hypothesis which states that training and career
development has a significant effect on the level of efficiency of the worker was accepted while
the null was rejected. Findings also showed that only “training and career development” was
deemed statistically significant. This could be due to the fact that although extrinsic factors
especially monetary rewards tend to appeal more to workers, training and career development
provides them with opportunity for growth through skill acquisition. Also the lack of required
tools, skills and resources necessary to carry out their work efficiently in an organization may also
affect the level of efficiency of the worker. Furthermore, lack of adequate job schedule may also
be responsible for inefficiency in most organizations.

Similarly, Lake (2000) in his study which is of importance to this research investigated the
correlation between motivation and job performance using employee effectiveness, efficiency ,

89
commitment and innovation levels as a measure of performance. The study concluded that most
workers in developed nations placed more importance on intrinsic factors than those in less
developed nations who opted for extrinsic factors citing the need to satisfy other needs as a major
criteria for their choice. He further stated that the need for career growth through training and
development was deemed a major criterion for improved level of efficiency of workers citing the
acquisition of necessary skills as a determining factor.

Objective 5: To determine the influence of employee motivation on organizational productivity.

The findings from the study revealed that motivational factors are significant predictors of the level
of productivity of the worker. As such the alternate hypothesis which states that employee
motivation has a significant influence of organizational productivity was accepted while the null
was rejected. However, most importantly is that findings from the study showed that motivational
factors were rated significantly at 35.8% as factors affecting worker productivity in this study.
Findings from the study also showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors were
statistically significant and can independently affect the level of productivity of the workers.
However it was discovered that extrinsic motivational factors was found to be more significant
than intrinsic motivational factors. That is extrinsic motivational factors was believed to have a
greater effect on the level of productivity of the workers. The remaining 64.2% not accounted for
as factors affecting employee productivity levels could be due to other factors which may not have
been covered in this research. This could include factors such as organizational culture, leadership
styles and organizational strategy and structure amongst others.

In corroboration, a related study by (Akerele, 2001) compared the relative importance of ten
motivational factors such as pay, training, security, etc. Which are extrinsic to the job, and other
intrinsic factors like employee well-being, good relationships with managers, responsibility etc.
among 80 employees of an organization. And it was hypothesized that higher values will be placed
on intrinsic rather than extrinsic job factors. However, the result did not uphold the hypothesis and
it showed several extrinsic factors such as adequate compensation, job security, training amongst
others were rated as the most important factors affecting productivity levels in selected
organizations.
Similarly Lake (2004) posits that motivational factors regardless of the nature i.e. intrinsic or
extrinsic cannot be underestimated when productivity is concerned. Baase (2009|) and

90
Nwachukwu (2004) also suggested that for an organization to be profitable, relevant and remain
competitive in a rapidly changing and constantly evolving business environment, it must be ready
to cater for the needs of its workforce. This is because workers are regarded as an asset to any
organization as such ensuring high productivity levels amongst them requires adequate motivation.

91
 CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

This chapter comprises discussions associated with findings of the entire research. This includes
summary of the work, findings both theoretical and empirical findings, conclusions, policy
implication of the findings, recommendations, limitation of the research, suggestions for further
study and contribution to knowledge.

6.1 Summary of the Work

The major aim of this research is to identify the effects of workplace motivation on employee
productivity using the MAY & BAKER PLC as a study.

Specifically, the study sought to achieve the following objectives:

i. To determine the effect of employee well-being on the level of effectiveness of the worker
ii. To determine the effect of employee relationship with managers on the level of efficiency
of the worker
iii. To examine the effect of compensation on the level of effectiveness of the worker
iv. To examine the effect of training and career development on the level of efficiency of the
worker
v. To determine the effect of employee motivation on organizational productivity

In addition to the objectives, chapter one contains the statement of research problem, the research
questions, significance of the study, hypotheses, scope and limitations as well as an
operationalization of the research variables used in the study.

In Chapter two, extensive literature and various theories on motivation such as Abraham Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs theory, Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory and Victor Vroom’s expectancy
theory was discussed in relation to productivity measures. Finally the gaps in literature were also
outlined.

In chapter three, with the aim of achieving the stated objectives of this study, the researcher
adopted the descriptive research design and the survey method. The research instruments used for

92
data collection was the questionnaire. The questionnaires were administered 217 staff of the MAY
& BAKER Plc. Out of the 217 administered, 185 were retrieved and analyzed.

Chapter four involves the presentation and analysis of data which was gotten from questionnaires
administered. Descriptive statistics was used for the analysis of the data, linear regression analysis
was also used to test all the hypotheses.

Chapter five contains discussion of findings with respect to both theoretical and empirical findings.

6.2 Conclusions

Employees are and should be considered the most vital above other factors of production, the most
valuable resource available to an organization. This is because they are an integral part of the
organization as such it is very important for organizations, in pursuit of a competitive edge, to
ensure that the satisfaction of their employees is made a top priority. This is to ensure that
employees display positive attitude to work through improved performance and productivity
levels. Also it is important to note that a lack of adequate motivation results in low productivity
and vice versa.
Furthermore the advent of Globalization has resulted in the ability of different organizations to
source for employees across several countries and the previously existing barriers have been
reduced, this has resulted in higher competition for personnel with the right skills and experience.
As such it is important for employers and their managers who value their staff to recognize those
factors that affect employee performance and productivity levels on the job or in the workplace
and ensure they are fulfilled accordingly. (Brown & Yashioka, 2003; and Sinha & Sinha, 2012).
The concept of motivation may be complex particularly in the workplace and may pose a serious
challenge to managers as it is relative to individuals. This is because people differ in what they
need and want as such what may be seen as a source of motivation to an individual may not seem
so to another. As such managers tend to find it extremely difficult in coping with such a dilemma
in trying to figure out how to keep members of the workforce motivated. Although, several factors
may affect worker productivity levels in an organization such as organizational culture, leadership
style, organizational strategy and structure etc. The aspect of Motivation however plays a major
role in improving worker productivity levels and therefore should not be underestimated.
This study concludes that employee motivation be it intrinsic or extrinsic in nature has a significant
effect and is a predictor of productivity levels in an organization. It also concludes that both
93
intrinsic and extrinsic factors of motivation appeal to employees and a right mix of both is essential
in bringing out best performances from a workforce. These findings validate the Herzberg two-
factor theory, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory and Vroom’s expectancy Theory. From the
findings of the study one can deduce that most workers perceive extrinsic motivation as generally
having a larger influence on the psychological aspects of employee productivity. We also found
that intrinsic motivation is of importance to employee productivity, albeit to a lesser extent
psychologically but rather as a part of the total package that is offered to the employee by an
organization.

6.3 Recommendations

The following recommendations are made based on the findings of the study;
1. Managers must ensure employees are adequately motivated. Employee well-being should
be given due consideration and health and well-being programs should be organized to
cater for the needs and welfare of employees.
2. Management should encourage interpersonal relations amongst co-workers and their
managers to promote a sense of belonging and unity amongst staff. Also managers should
ensure employees are involved in decision making processes and given a chance to air their
views.
3. Also management must ensure they create a work environment that is conducive for
workers with adequate working conditions as well as providing the right tools and
resources to ensure worker effectiveness in discharging their respective duties.
4. Furthermore proper scheduling of job activities is key to achieving efficiency in the
workplace. Adequate compensation packages in form of monetary or non-monetary
rewards are essential in order to ensure that employees stay productive. Management
should ensure that rewards and benefits are fairly, justly and competitively allocated to
employees.
5. Management must also strive to ensure that all employees engage in training programs to
acquire new skills and also have equal opportunity to utilize their skills and competencies.
Management should make sure that career development opportunities are clearly
communicated to employees.

94
 6. An established career path and an adequate development plan should be put in place for
employees, development programs should be linked to each employees career needs and
not just the organization’s needs. Employees should be selected for sponsored training
programs fairly and justly.
7. Organizations should ensure that performance management provides adequate information
about strength and weaknesses of employees in form of feedback from employee
evaluations.
8. Employees who offer the same level of inputs with respect to skills, efforts, qualifications,
experience, should be entitled to equitable outcomes in terms of pay, promotion, job
security, and opportunity for advancement. Additional inputs and outstanding performance
should entitle an employee to additional rewards.
Finally, this study recommends that management should make policies that aids in ensuring that
employees are adequately extrinsically motivated to remain intrinsically motivated on the job. This
will in turn enhance or boost employee morale resulting in a competitive edge through higher
commitment levels, employee engagement, lower turnover and improved performance and
productivity levels.

6.4 Limitations of the Study

The findings of the study should not be generalized because of the scope of study. Data collection
was limited to the staff of May & Baker and therefore findings of this study may not reflect or hold
true in other organizations as such may not be generalized to organizations not included in this
study. Furthermore, the study utilized some variables of workplace motivation, and employee
productivity, other variables for these concepts may not yield exactly the same results. Also the
researcher is limited only to the information provided by the respondents in the research and
therefore cannot determine the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. Finally the
researcher can only cover limited works given the scope of the study.

6.5 Suggestions for Further Studies

The following suggestions will be beneficial for future research:

This study was concerned with workers in Nigeria. The sample was drawn from staffs of May &
Baker Plc, Ota, Ogun state, Nigeria. A research similar to it can be carried out in other

95
organizations so as to ascertain the applicability of the research findings in other contexts. In
addition, further research can be carried out using organizations in other geopolitical zones and
also, research could be carried out using more than one organization as a study.

6.6 Contribution to Knowledge

This study has contributed to knowledge in the following ways:

The research study provides a valuable collection of ideas, facts and figures that can be of
importance to other researchers, entrepreneurs, lecturers and students in comprehending the effects
and relationships that exist between workplace motivation and employee productivity.

The empirical review into the relevant research on effect of employee motivation on organizational
productivity showed that motivation is very significant to productivity. Most of these Studies
conducted in various nations around the globe all posited that motivation is essential in improving
employee effectiveness and efficiency levels on the job. This study therefore provides a basis for
research works and findings in these nations to be applied in business institutions and organizations
alike in Nigeria.

This contributes to knowledge by establishing that employee motivation be it intrinsic or extrinsic

facilitates productivity levels of workers. In previous studies, most researchers argue that
motivation has a significant effect on the level of productivity of a worker however believe that
extrinsic motivation happens to be more significant than intrinsic. This study has therefore
contributed to knowledge by pointing out that there is a significant relationship between motivation
and organizational productivity. Findings from this research also validates claims or arguments
that extrinsic motivational factors are considered to be more significant than intrinsic motivational
factors.

96
Figure 6: Schematic Model of the Study Depicting Research Hypotheses

Finally, one can deduce that this study has been able to establish the relationships and patterns that
exist amongst the research variables as depicted above in the schematic model of the study. From
the above model; (β) Beta represents the coefficient of the variables, H represents the different
hypotheses tested and (Sig.) represents the p-value or significant level of the various hypotheses
tested in the course of this study. All the hypotheses tested were found to be significant predictors
of productivity.

97
 REFERENCES
Abbott, M. & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data
envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22 (1), 89-97.
Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange in advances in experimental social psychology. 2,
Berkowitz Ed.
Adeniji, A. A. (2011). Organizational climate and job satisfaction among academic staff in
some selected private universities in southwest Nigeria, (PhD Thesis). Covenant
University, Ogun State, Nigeria.
Agbeto, O. (2002). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 67,422-436.

Akerele, A. (2001). Role of labour in productivity. Nigeria Journal of Industrial Relation, 5,

50-58.

Akinyele S. T. (2010). The influence of work environment on workers productivity: A case study
of selected oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal on Business
Management 4(3), 299–307.

Akinyele, S. T. (2007). A critical assessment of environmental impact on workers productivity in

Nigeria. Research Journal on Business Management. 1(1), 50-61.

Allis, O., & Ryan, P. (2008). Zero to One Million (1st Ed.): McGraw-Hills.

Aluko, N. (November, 2014). 6 Challenges Facing Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria and

Ghana. Kpakpakpa.com. Retrieved 13th January, 2017 from
http://kpakpakpa.com/spotlight/challenges-facing-manufacturing-in-nigeria-ghana/
Altinoz, M., Cakiroglu, D., & Cop, S. (2012). The effect of job satisfaction of the talented
employees on organizational commitment: A field research. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 58, 322-330.
Andrews, S. (2009). Human Resource Management: A Textbook for Hospitality Industry.Tata
McGraw Hill
Assam, A. P. (2002). Motivation and job satisfaction. (Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, University
of Lagos, Nigeria.)

98
Baase, C. M. D. (2009). Testimony before the senate committee on health, education, labor
and pensions 23. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration,
17(1), 4-9.
Banjoko, S. (2006). Managing Corporate Reward Systems, Lagos: Pumark Nigeria Limited.

Banjoko, S. A (2010). Human resources management. Lagos: Saban Publishers.

Bartram, S. & Gibson, B. (2000). The training needs analysis toolkit, 2nd ed. Amherst, MA:
HRD Press, Inc.
Bassanini, A. (2004). Improving skills for more and better jobs? The quest for efficient policies to
promote adult education and training. European Commission Conference, Quality and
Efficiency in Education, Brussels, May 6th, 2002.

Basset-Jones, N. & Lloyd, G. C. (2005), Does herzberg’s motivational theory have staying
power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 57-56.

Beach D. S. (2005). Management of People at Work. London, Coller Macmillan.

Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. A. (2003) Human Behavior. New York, Brace and World.

Bernadin J. H. (2005). Human Resource Management, an Experimental Approach, (4th

Edition) McGraw Hill/Irin (Boston), USA, 252 – 253
Bernardin, H. J. (2007). Human Resource Management: An Experiential Approach. Tata McGraw
Hill

Bessell, I., Dicks, B., Wysocki, A., Kepner, K. (2002). Understanding Motivation: An
Effective Tool for Managers. Florida: University of Florida IFAS extension.

Bhatti, K. K., & Qureshi, T. M. (2007). Impact of employee participation on job satisfaction,
employee commitment and employee productivity. International Review of Business
Research, 3, 54 –68.
Brady, M. (2000). Employee work engagement: Best practices for employers. Research Works:
Partnership for Workplace Mental Health, 1, 1-11.
Brenner, P. (2004). Workers physical surrounding. (5th Edition). Tata McGraw Hill

99
Broussard, S. C., & Garrison, M. E. B. (2004). The relationship between classroom motivation and
academic achievement in elementary school-aged children. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 33(2), 106–120.

Brown, W. A., & Yashioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in
employee retention. Journal of Non-profit Management and Leadership 14(1), 5-18.

Burns, A. J., Roberts, T. L., Posey, C., Bennett, R. J. & Courtney, J. F. (2015). Assessing the
role of security education, training, and awareness on insiders' security-related
behavior: An expectancy theory approach. In: System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th
Hawaii International Conference.
Centers, R. & Bugental D. E. (2007), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations among different aspects
of the working population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15(1), 7-20.
Chapman, E., & Goodwin, C. (2001). Supervisor’s survival kit your first step into management
(9th Edition). Prentice Hall.
Cooper, D., & Schinder, P. (2006). Business research methods. (8th edition). New York.
McGrawHill.
Cummins, R. C. (2010), Job stress and the buffering effect of supervisory support. Group
Organization. Management. 15, 92–104.
Davies, J. (2005). Review of effects of task factors on job attitude and job behavior II. Job
Enlargement and Organizational Context, Perdonsi Psychology 22, 418 –426.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of Behavior, Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Eshiteti, S. N., Okaka, O., Maragia, S. N. Odera, O. & Akerele, E. K. (2013). Effects of
succession planning programs on staff retention. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 4(6), 157.
Estes, B. & Polnick, B. (2012). Examining motivation theory in higher education: An expectancy
theory analysis of tenured faculty productivity. International Journal of Management,
Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-7.
Ezulike, A. (2001). “Evaluating productivity level in Nigerian civil service: A case study of
Imo State” Unpublished Postgraduate Thesis, Calabar: University of Calabar.

100
Farr, R. (1977). On the nature of attributional artifacts in qualitative research: Herzberg’s two
factor theory of work motivation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(1), 3-14.

George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2012). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. 6th
edition. Reading, MA: Prentice Hall.

Giancarlo, F. L. (2014). Should HR professionals devote more time to intrinsic rewards?

Compensation & Benefits Review, 46(1), 25-31.

Gillenson, M. L., & Sanders, T. C. (2005). Employee relationship management: Applying the
concept of personalization to U.S. navy sailors. Information System Research, 22(1),
45-50.

Githinji, A. (2014). Effects of training on employee performance: A case study of United Nations
support office for the African Union mission in Somalia. (Masters Thesis, Chandaria
School of Business, United States International University). Retrieved from
http://erepo.usiu.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11732/71/ANGELA.pdf?sequence=1

Glen, W. (November, 2014). 6 Challenges facing the global manufacturing sector in 2015. Global
Manufacturing. Retrieved 18th February, 2017 from
http://www.manufacturingglobal.com/leadership/226/6-challenges-facing-the-global
manufacturing-sector-in-2015

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing
the human side of work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2010). Intrinsic,
identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary
school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 711–735.

Hamidi, N., Saberi, H., & Safari, M. (2014). The effect of implementation of talent management
on job satisfaction governmental organizations (Case Study: Ministry of Roads and Urban).
Journal of Novel Applied Sciences, 3(1), 100-113
Harris, P. (2001). The impact of working life on health behavior: The effect of job strain on the
cognitive predictors of exercise. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 342-353.

101
Hellriegel, D. S. (1996). Management 7th ed. Cincinnati Ohio: South Western college publishing.

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization.

Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-29)

Herzberg, F. (2000). The motivation to work, New York: Willy and Son Publishers.
Hoobler, J. M., Brass, D.J. (2006) Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.
Iheriohanma, E. (2006). Perceiving worker’s interest in participatory management: issues and
challenges, International Journal of Social Sciences, 5: 113-129.
International Labour Organization (2005). Number of work related accidents and illnesses
continues to increase, ILO and WHO join in call for Prevention Strategies Press Release
Ivancevich, J. L. (1994). Management quality and Competitiveness. Illinois: Irwin publishers.

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2011). Organizational behavior and
Management. New York, NY: McGraw –Hill
Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (2002). Organizational Behavior and Management (6th Edition).
New York: McGraw-Hill
James A. F, Stoner, R. F. (2009). Management. patarang, Delhi, India: Dorling Kindersley.

James, C. (2014). “The warning signs of a demotivated workforce”. LinkedIn, retrieved on May
12, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIVT_9LUJMc

Jennifer, M. & George, G. R. (2006). Contemporary Management. Creating value in

organizations. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Jibowo, A. A. (2007). ―Effect of motivators and hygiene factors on job performance among
extension workers in the former Western State of Nigeria‖. The Quarterly Journal of
Administration, 12 (1):45-54.
Johnson, R. E., & Steinman, L. (2009). Use of implicit measures for organizational research: An
empirical example. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 41, 202–212.
Kibui, A. W., Gachunga, H., & Namusonge, G. S. (2014). Role of talent management on
employee retention in Kenya: A survey of state corporations in Kenya: Empirical review.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) 3(2), 414-424.
Kohun, S. (1992).Business environment. Ibadan: University Press

102
Koontz, O.D. (2008). The Social Psychology of Industry. Penguin Books.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970) Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610

Kyko O.C. (2005). Instrumentation: Know Yourself and Others. New York: Longman
Lake, S. (2000). Low Cost Strategies for employee retention: Compensation and Benefits
Review. 32(4), 65-72.

Lawler, E. E. (2003). Reward practices and performance management 52 system effectiveness.

Center for effective organizations.
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early
childhood education: The role of job crafting. Under review, Academy of Management
Journal.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149.
Linus, O. (2006). Business Research Methodology. Lagos: Grey Resources Edition.

Lu, L., Cooper, C. L. & Lin, H. Y (2013). A cross-cultural examination of presentism and
supervisory support. Career Development International, 18, 440–456
Lumley, E. J., Coetzee, M., Tladinyane, R., & Ferreira, N. (2011). Exploring the job Satisfaction
and organizational commitment of employees in the information technology Environment.
Southern African Business Review, 15(1), 100-118.
Maimuna, M. N., & Rashad, Y. F. (2013). The impact of employee training and development
on employee productivity. Global Journal of Commerce and Management Perspective,
2(6), 91-93

Manion, J. (2005). From Management to Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Martocchio, J. (2006). Strategic Compensation: A Human Resource Management Approach,

New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Martocchio, J. J. (2006). Employee Benefits: A primer for human resource professionals (2nd Ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: New York Harper& Row.

103
Mathis, Robert L., & John H. Jackson. (2003). Human Resource Management. (11th Ed). Mason,
OH: Thomson/South-Western.

Mayo, M., Sanchez, J. I., Pastor, J. C., & Rodriguez, A. (2012) Supervisor and co-worker support:
A source congruence approach to buffering role conflict and physical stressors.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3872–3889

Mbogu, G. (2001). Implications of leadership styles of Administrators on Job Performance in

Two Selected Organizations in Owerri, Imo State” Unpublished Thesis, Calabar:
University of Calabar

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal 146
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
McClelland, D. (1963). The achieving society. Princeton; J.N.J. Van Nostrand.

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

McNamara C., (2003). Field Guide to Leadership and Supervision for Nonprofit Staff. (2nd Ed.).
Amazon

Mitchell, M. S.; Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 159
168.

Morse, G. (2003). Why we misread motives. Harvard Business Review. Journal of applied
psychology 81(1), 18.

Mugenda, O. N., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Nairobi: ACTS press.
Mugenda, A. G. (2008). Social science research: Theory and principles. Nairobi: Kijabe
Printers.
Neil, C., (2000). Can Acquired Knowledge Compensate for Age-Related Declines in
Cognitive Efficiency? Psychology and the Aging Revolution: How We Adapt to Longer
Life. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Ngechu, M. (2006). Understanding the research process and methods, an Introduction. (1st
Edition). Kenya: University of Nairobi.

104
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P.M. (2006) Human resource management
(5th Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Norland, E. V. T. (1990). Controlling error in evaluation instruments. Journal of Evaluation,
28(2), 1-2.
Nwachukwu, C. C. (1987). Management Theory and Practice. Onitsha: Africana FEB Publisher
Limited
Nwachukwu, C. C (2004). Effective leadership and productivity. Evidence from a national
survey of industrial organization. African Journal for the study of Social Issues, 1: 38
46.
Nwachukwu, C. C. (2009). Human Resources management (3rd edition), Port Harcourt: David
Stone Publishers Ltd.
Nwobodo, H. E. (2012). Succession planning and corporate survival: a study of selected Nigeria
firms. The International Journal of Business & Management, 2(9), 74-92.
Obikeze, S. O. (2005). Personnel Management. Onitsha: Book point ltd.

Ofori, D., & Aryeetey, M. (2011). Recruitment and selection practices in small and medium
enterprises: Perspectives from Ghana. International Journal of Business Administration, 2
(3), 45-60.
Ojo, R., (2003). “Fundamentals of Research Methods” Lagos: Standard, Publications
Oladipo, J. A. & Abdulkadir, D. S. (2014). An evaluation of strategic human resource management
(SHRM) practices in Nigerian universities: The impact of ownership type and age.
European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 32, 8-25.
Oliver, R. (1974). Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen's performance. Journal of
Marketing Research 11, 243-253.
Osuagwu, L. (2006). Business Research Methodology: Principles and Practice. Surulere, Grey
Resource Limited.

Parashar, B. K. (2016). Significance of theory Z in indian scenario. International Journal of

Management and Social Sciences Research, 5(2), 8-16.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

105
Purvis, R. L., Zagenczyk, T. J. & McCray, G. E. (2015). What's in it for me? Using expectancy
theory and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its direction and intensity.
International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 3-14.
Putra, E. D., Seonghee, C. & Liu, J. (2015). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on work
engagement in the hospitality industry: Test of motivation crowding theory. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 0(0), 1-14.
Rai, A. K. (2013). Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Cases. New Delhi: PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Reilly, P. (2003). “New Approaches in Reward: Their Relevance to the Public Sector”, Public
Money and Management, 23, 4:245-352.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Scarth, W. (2002). Population Ageing, Productivity and Living Standards. In The Review of
Economic Performance and Social Progress: Towards a Social Understanding of
Productivity. 145–156. Montreal: IRPP.

Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J., & Jennings, K. (2005) Antecedents and Consequences of Role Stress:
A Covariance Structure Analysis of Organizational Behavior. 10, 3558.

Schedlitzki, D., & Edwards, G. (2014). Studying leadership: Traditional and critical approaches.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Schroder, R. (2008). Job satisfaction of employees at a Christian university. Journal of Research
on Christian Education, 17(2), 225-246

Shumen, J. (2009). Is Organizational Culture Similar with HRM Nigeria: Northern Press

Shellengarger, S. (2001). Work and Family, the Wall Street Journal, August 22, B1.

Shipley, D., & Kiely, J. (1986). Industrial salesforce motivation and Herzberg’s dual factor theory:
A UK perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 6(1), 9-16

Singh, A. S., & Masuku, M. B. (2014). Sampling techniques & determination of sample size
in applied statistics research: An Overview. International Journal of Economics,
Commerce and Management, 2, (11), 1-22.

106
Sinha, C., & Sinha, R. (2012). Factors affecting employee retention: A Comparative Analysis
of two organizations from Heavy Engineering Industry 4(3), 145-162

Sinha, K. & Trivedi, S. (2014). Employee Engagement with Special Reference to Herzberg Two
Factor and LMX Theories: A Study of I.T Sector. SIES Journal of Management, 10(1),
22-35.

Sinha, S., & Bajaj, R. (2013). Successful Human Resource Management Determinants to Build
Good Employee Relations. International Journal of Human Resource Management
and Research, 3(2), 31-36.
Smerek, R. & Peterson, M. (2007). Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction
among non-academic employees at a university. Research in Higher Education, 48(2),
229-250.

Society for Human Resource Management (2014). Employee job satisfaction and Engagement:
the road to economic recovery. USA: SHRM.

Spector, P. (2008). Industrial and organizational behavior (5th edition). New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons
Sesanga, K. & Garrett, R. (2005). Job satisfaction of university academics: Perspectives from
Uganda. Higher Education, 50(1), 33-56....

Stello, C. M. (2011). Herzberg’s two satisfaction: An integrative literature review. Paper presented
at the 2011 Student Research Conference: Exploring Opportunities in Research, Policy,
and Practice, University of Minnesota Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy
and Development, Minneapolis, MN
Stone, R. W. & Henry, J. W. (2003). The roles of computer self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
in influencing the computer end-user's organizational commitment. Journal of End User
Computing, 15(1), 38-53.
Stoner, J. A. F., Freeman, E. & Gilbert, D. A. (1995). Management. (6th Ed.) London: Prentice
Hall International
Sunia, F. (2014). Factors that predict employee retention in profit and not-for-profit
Organizations. Global Journal of Human Resource Management 2(4), 1-8.

107
Tayler, B. (2012). Creating a psychologically healthy workplace: The role of communication.
Retrieved February 27, 2010 from http://www.phwa.org/resources/creating a healthy
workplace
Taylor, G. S., & Vest, M. J. (1992). Pay comparison and pay satisfaction among public sector
employees. Public Personnel Management, 21(4), 445 – 454.
Tongo, C. I. (2005). “Public service motivation in Edo state of Nigeria” in Wither Nigeria (14th
General Assembly Proceedings), Social Science Academy of Nigeria, 188-198.
Tyson S. (1999). Human resource strategy: A process for managing the contribution of HRM
to organizational performance, in Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E. (Ed), Strategic human
resource management, 110-123.
Vineet, T., Sinha, S., & Bajaj, R. (2013). Employee relationship management: An effective
means to develop Public Sectors. Journal Search and Research, 4(3), 21-27.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Willey & Sons.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wargborn, C. (2008). Managing motivation in organizations: Why employee relationship

management matters. Saarbruecken: VDM.

Yesufu T. M. (2000). The human factor in national development. Ibadan: Spectrum Books
Limited.

108
APPENDIX 1
College of Business and Social Sciences,
Covenant University,
Canaan land Ota,
Ogun State.
March 21st, 2017.
Dear Respondents,
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE EFFECTS OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION ON
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY.

I am a Masters student of Business Administration in Covenant University. This questionnaire is

part of my research project as a requirement for the award of an M.Sc Degree in Business
Administration. I would indeed be very grateful if I can be assisted kindly in the completion of the
research questions. The information provided in the questionnaire will be strictly used for
academic purposes and will be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Yours Faithfully,

Ajalie Stanley

109
 APPENDIX 2

SECTION A: PERSONAL INFORMATION (CIRCLE APPROPRIATELY)

1. GENDER:
a) Male b) Female
2. AGE CATEGORY:
a) Below 30 years b) 31 – 40 years c) 41 – 50 years d) Above 50 years
3. EDUCATIONAL STATUS:
a) O’ Level b) NCE/OND c) HND/BSC d)Postgraduate Degree
4. MARITAL STATUS
a) Single b)Married c)Divorced
5. JOB STATUS
a) Senior Staff b) Junior Staff c) Contract Staff d) Casual Staff

SECTION B: EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION

PART A: INTRINSIC FACTORS (TICK APPROPRIATELY)

S/N EMPLOYEE WELLBEING 5 4 3 2 1

SA A N D SD
1 I am okay with my present working conditions

2 Work pressure puts stress on me

3 I feel safe at work

4 The company provides me with adequate leave and

holiday period
5 My company does a lot as regards the health and safety
of its employees

110
S/N RELATIONSHIP WITH CO-WORKERS 5 4 3 2 1
SA A N D SD
1 My relationship with my co-workers is strictly
professional
2 I enjoy working with my co-workers

3 I enjoy a friendly relationship with my co-workers

outside of work
4 My company organizes social functions and get
together parties for all staff
5 My company does a lot to improve the relationship
amongst all staff

S/N RELATIONSHIP WITH MANAGERS 5 4 3 2 1

SA A N D SD
1 My relationship with my managers is strictly
professional
2 My manager criticizes me when I fail to meet
expectations
3 I receive credit or praise from my manager when I
meet or exceed expectations
4 My manager involves me in decision making
processes
5 I enjoy a friendly relationship with my manager
outside of work

111
 PART B: EXTRINSIC FACTORS (TICK APPROPRIATELY)

S/N WORK ENVIRONMENT 5 4 3 2 1

SA A N D SD
1 I enjoy a conducive and friendly work environment

2 My company does a lot to improve the work environment

3 I enjoy a certain level of autonomy in discharging my duties

4 My company organizes routine safety environmental

programs

5 My office is spacious and comfortable

S/N COMPENSATION 5 4 3 2 1
SA A N D SD
1 My company pays me well

2 I believe more incentives should be included in my total

reward package

3 I am not satisfied with my current pay

4 I prefer in-kind rewards to cash rewards

5 I receive allowances for special duties and overtime on

the job

112
S/N TRAINING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT 5 4 3 2 1
SA A N D SD
1 My company has a training and development policy
applicable to all employees
2 I have attended skill acquisition programs sponsored by the
company
3 Supervisors support the use of techniques learnt in training
that employees bring back to their jobs
4 My company links training and development with its
business strategy
5 Employees who use their skills are given preference for
new assignments

SECTION C: ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

S/N EFFECTIVENESS 5 4 3 2 1
SA A N D SD
1 Senior managers visibly demonstrates a commitment to
quality by providing feedback
2 My company provides realistic and clearly defined quality
goals
3 My company does a lot to ensure that workload is fair

4 I have the tools and resources to do my job well

5 My supervisor evaluates the results I get when he assigns

work to me

113
S/N EFFICIENCY 5 4 3 2 1
SA A N D SD
1 My boss always praise me for completing tasks assigned
to me on record time
2 My boss criticizes me for the waste of resources
allocated to me while carrying out certain assignments
3 My company provides me with a job schedule to ensure
time is properly utilized.
4 I often get my job done properly in good time at the least
cost possible
5 I am very prudent with company resources because I am
held accountable

114