By UVA FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Master Thesis Dr. Wendelien van Eerde
Factors Affecting Employee Work
Motivation in Foreign Invested Enterprises
in China
Written by:
Index
Introduction ... 2
Literature Review... 3
2.1 Popular Work Motivation Theories ... 3
2.2 Challenges of Work Motivation in China ... 5
Methodology ... 6
3.1 Research Method ... 6
3.2 Data collection ... 7
4.3 Data Processing and Analysis ... 8
3.4 Data Analysis ... 8
RESULTS ... 9
Pilot Survey Results ... 9
Actual Study Results ... 12
Discussion ... 29
5.1 Pretest/Pilot Survey Results ... 29
5.2 The Actual Study Results... 29
5.3 Future Research ... 36
CONCLUSION ... 36
References ... 37
Introduction
Motivation refers to a need or drive that incites people to particular action on behavior (). Work motivation is one of the most studied aspects of organizational behavior. It includes the reasons for acting in a certain way at work, what directs the behavior and how to maintain it (). Work
motivation is crucial to any organization because it influences employee satisfaction and other aspects that directly affect output or performance at the workplace. Over the years, scholars, especially in western countries, have developed various motivation theories to explain work motivation. They include the two-factor theory, expectancy theory, equity theory and motivational framework studied by Katz and Kahn and others.
After the 1978 economic reforms in China, numerous multinational corporations were established in the country. Ever since, the Chinese economy has been growing at an
unprecedented rate. The changing economic environment directly impacts changing factors that may affect employees working motivation. An empirical study was conducted among employees working in Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs) to determine factors that motivate or demotivate them in the current economic environment.
Literature Review
2.1 Popular Work Motivation Theories 1. Two-factor theory of Herzberg et al., 1959
The two-factor theory was as a result of a 1959 study done by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman. They believed that there were two categories of motivation factors that affect employees' attitude toward their job and also their work behavior. The first category is known as hygiene, which includes extrinsic factors of a job such as organizational policy and
administration, interpersonal relations, the work environment, salary, personal life, and work security among others. Lack of these kinds of factors in an organization may cause
dissatisfaction among employees. If the situation can be improved, employees may not be dissatisfied but may also not be satisfied either. The second category includes the intrinsic aspects of a job that are also known as the motivators. They include work itself, achievement, recognition, advancement among others and have a direct positive effect on employee
motivation. Consequently, organizations, where motivating factors are present, have more satisfied employees.
The two-factor theory clearly distinguishes motivational factors for organizations. For example, Herzberg and his colleagues found out that when asked to comment about their jobs, employees tend to positively about factors related to the work itself if they are satisfied at their workplace. However, when dissatisfied, they tend to complain about the extrinsic factors. As a result, organizations can motivate their employees by granting the extrinsic factors and reinforcing the motivator or intrinsic factors. As a flaw, the two-factor theory unilaterally explained the
relationship between individual needs and motivation but did nothing to combine the individual needs and the organizational subjects.
2. Expectancy theory of Vroom, 1964
Vroom (1964) was the first scholar to use cognitive-oriented assumptions conduct research in work motivation (Lawler & Suttle, 1973). Vroom first developed the VIE model (Valence - Instrumentality - Expectancy Model) to explain people's work behavior based on prediction towards their goals (Vroom, 1964). The author defined valence as the estimation of the value of goals by individuals, instrumentality as various outcomes and expectancy as the estimation of the probability to fulfill the goal of efforts. Vroom's study relates the motivation theory to the
operational level through switching studies from an objective way to subjective way. Deriving inspiration from Vroom's study, numerous studies were done such as in the field of leadership (House, 1971), training motivation (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992), and goal
commitment (Tubbs, 1993) and many others. Also, a meta-analysis was done by Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) toward expectancy theory.
3. Equity theory of Adams, 1963
Adams' Equity Theory is built on an earlier study done by Humans (1961). It describes the balance of equity or inequity between people's effort and their compensation and if what they do if they perceive any of them to be unfair. Adam's study indicated that people's work behavior can be affected by the judgment from the comparison of their input and outcomes. The input can be the education received, work experience gained from previous work, effort contributed to their job and relevant training they took to improve performance. The outcomes can be salary, recognition, and promotion and so forth (Adams, 1963). People judge by comparing the ratio of their outcomes to inputs with a similar ratio of colleagues in their organization or other
comparable organizations. According to this judgment, people perceive the comparison as either equal or unequal. However, equity can only be perceived when there is a balance of their
outcomes and inputs (Adam, 1963).
Motivational framework of Katz and Kahn, 1978
There are three basic parts of Katz and Kahn's motivational framework. They include the rule compliance, internalized motivation and external reward (Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L., 1978). Rule compliance helps employees get a clear view of their roles and responsibility without ambiguity. Internalized Motivation needs employees to incorporate the group goals into their career goals, because when individuals fulfill their goals, the group goals can also be achieved. External reward argues that proper multiple reward methods can motivate employees efficiently (Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L., 1978).
2.2 Challenges of Work Motivation in China
China is the largest developing country based on GDP. It emerged second in a list produced by the International Monetary Fund (Bjorklund, 2001). According to Chen and colleagues (2011), it is one of the countries attracting the most foreign direct investment (FDI) among developing countries. Since the economic reforms of 1978, the economy of China has experienced rapid globalization and achieved rapid growth (Chen et al., 2011). For example, in 2010, China’s FDI inflows grew 17.44% compared with the number in 2009 and actual used foreign investment was 105.735 billion US dollars. There were 27406 newly established enterprises invested by
foreigners and increase of 16.94% year-on-year (MOFCOM, 2011). Much of this investment came from Hong Kong (63.8% in 2010) and other Eastern Asian countries (18.2% in 2010). Investment from European countries and the United States of America was 8.3% in 2010.
Along with the numerous foreign investments, western management was introduced in China. Some studies, conducted in the 1990s, indicated that many enterprises funded by FDI
encountered problems and even experienced failures associated with human resource management, especially in performance motivation (Child, 1996; Kelley & Shenkar, 1993; Jackson & Bak, 1998). However, most of these studies focused on human resource management
or practices and not workforce motivation and to an even lesser extent, specific motivating or demotivating factors. They include studies by Leung and Kwong (2003), Dessler (2006) and Wang, Bruning and Peng did (2007). These studies analyzed all the specific HRM practices in China and did not discuss the specific factors. Studies that discussed motivating factors talked about compensation only and left out other factors (Chiu, Luk, & Tang, 2002). With such a rapid growing economy and a fast-changing social environment, motivational patterns may be
changing as well. More studies on work motivation are always needed in a changing environment. This paper is designed to collect factors that are motivating or demotivating employees in FIEs and joint ventures.
Methodology
3.1 Research Method
The research study was about work motivation among employees of multinational corporations. The study was carried out to determine the factors that motivate employees of MNCs at work. The study was conducted in Beijing, China. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from the workers. The study was conducted during the day and weekdays when employees were at their workplaces. The study involved two different studies: a pilot or reconnaissance study and the actual research. The sample for the reconnaissance was selected at random by the Human Resource Manager of a random multinational company operating in Beijing. For the actual study, the researcher selected employees at random. The questionnaire method was used to collect data in the actual study while telephone interviews were employed in the pilot study. Data was analyzed using SPSS software package for both studies and a report prepared. In this
chapter, the report will examine the study subjects, data collection and analysis for both the pilot and the actual study.
Subjects
The subjects for the reconnaissance study were selected from a random multinational company located in Beijing. Respondents for the actual study were from random international businesses in China.
3.2 Data collection
1. Pilot Survey/ Reconnaissance Study
A pilot study was necessary to collect the critical incidents and factors that motivated or demotivated employees working for multinationals and guide the actual study. From a total of twelve companies in Beijing, one company was chosen randomly to provide fifteen employees who formed the sample for the pilot survey. From the fifteen, thirteen were workers while two were managers in the said company.
Use of telephone calls interviewed the respondents. After introductions and informing the respondent of their rights and the importance of the study, the researcher proceeded to ask them to describe motivation and demotivation related incidents. They were required to take between one and two minutes to think and express work-related incidents when “you worked
exceptionally hard on your job” and “when did this happen”.
Based on the respondent’s answers to the first two questions, the research narrowed down to two more questions from the following list;
• What is the specific action you took after the incidents? • How long were you affected by the incidents?
• What do you think you can do to precipitate (or prevent when asking about demotivating incidents) similar incidents happen in the future
• What exactly led to the incidents?
To collect data about the demotivating factors, the same questions were asked apart from the very first question that was changed to “Describe an incident when you put exceptionally little effort on your job”. At the end of the interview, personal information was collected and included age, gender, educational level, job title, number of years they had worked in the present company and the total number of years in employment. Incidents mentioned by the subjects are listed in Table 1 in the results section.
As mentioned above, the respondents had been informed of the rights before answering the questions. They knew it was voluntary and were at liberty to quit at any time. Also, the
researcher informed them that the information given was confidential and would be used only for research purposes. Additionally, the interview was taken in two languages; Chinese and English in that order although all subjects chose to take and answer questions in Chinese. Later, the
researcher made translations compile the report. 2. The Actual Study
For the actual study, a questionnaire was constructed to collect data based on the motivating and demotivating incidents described in the reconnaissance study. A sample of 100 respondents was selected from employees working in Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIE) in Beijing.
From the reconnaissance study, items mentioned by more than three people (approximately 18% of 20 samples) were selected to construct the questionnaire. Therefore, there were 33 items included of which there were 18 motivating factors and 15 demotivating factors that appeared randomly on the questionnaire. Personal or demographic information such as age, gender, educational level, job position, length of service in the current company and total working years were also included in the questionnaire.
The questions on the questionnaire, with an exception of the demographic questions, were coded with Likert scale that had three categories; 1, 2 and 3. If the item in question motivated the respondent to work hard at the workplace, they selected 3, and if it discouraged them, they selected 1. For elements that were neutral or if they had never encountered a related incident, they were select 2. Data from the questionnaire was analyzed use SPSS software package.
4.3 Data Processing and Analysis Data Coding
Since the incidents were too many to include in a single questionnaire, they were combined or coded to reduce clutter and enhance data collection. Similar incidents were combined to form one item. For instance, getting praise from superiors and coworkers and getting good feedback from others were combined under recognition. However, the two descriptions of recognition appeared on the questionnaire form to clarify the choice to respondents.
3.4 Data Analysis
From the pilot study, 23 and 21 motivating and demotivating factors respectively were collected. They were tabulated into a table and grouped according to the description of the factor,
frequency and percentage. The information from the table was the basis for constructing the questionnaire. From the table, 33 questions were selected to make the questionnaire.
For the questionnaire, the data collected was grouped into clusters based on similarity and then analyzed. A k-means cluster analysis was carried out on the data collected to understand further the relationship between the groups. A two cluster method was used based on the two subsets tested; motivating and de-motivating factors. While analyzing the K-means cluster, the variables were divided into two groups; motivators and de-motivators. The variables were then separately analyzed using the five predetermined clusters; the nature of work, development and fairness, relations with others, well-being and administration.
RESULTS
After sending the questionnaire to one hundred people working in FIEs in Beijing, eighty-five subjects filled it on-line and returned it within the week. Some of the questionnaires were unusable due to errors and after sorting out, only 78 were valid. The 78 valid questionnaires had all the questions about motivational items answered although some still missed certain personal information. Sixty-five employees filled the questionnaire and nine employers among which were thirty-three males and Forty-three females. The respondents’ ages varied from twenty to forty-three with a mean of about 26.9, educational level was mainly at Bachelors and Masters Level. The length of service at current company for the respondents varied from a couple of weeks to twenty years.
Pilot Survey Results
Table 1a: Motivating Factors collected from the Telephone Interview
No. Motivating critical incidents Frequenc
y Percentage
1 Recognition (good feedback from others, praise
from superiors and co-workers) 19 95%
2 Achievement from work 18 90%
3 Work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable
4 Perceived attention from superiors and co-workers 15 75%
5 Good interpersonal relationship with superiors,
co-workers 12 60%
6 Promotion or salary raise 10 50%
7 Well-being (housing, insurance, transport,
paid-vocation) 10 50%
8 More job responsibilities (added job content,
improved job requirement) 9 45%
9 Expectation for promotion or salary raise 8 40%
10 Perceived support from organization 8 40%
11 Urgent work or near the deadline 7 35%
12 Large income before expenses (buy house or car or
family need) 7 35%
13 Before regular assessment 7 35%
14 Good organizational climate 6 30%
15 Birth of a child 5 25%
16 Comparison with similar level friends or college
classmates 5 25%
17 Job security (to ensure being hired) 4 20%
18 Good working environment (good office, good
equipment) 4 20%
19 With proper supervision 2 10%
21 After vacation 2 10% 22 Promotion or praise gained by co-workers 2 10%
23 Sense of guilt ( feel being paid more than their
abilities) 1 5%
The table above shows participants’ responses during the pre-test study. According to the results, the most motivating factor in China is “Recognition (good feedback from others, praise from superiors and co-workers)” (95%) while “Recognition (good feedback from others, praise from superiors and co-workers)” (5%) was considered as the least motivating element in workplaces in China.
Table 1b: Demotivating Factors collected from the Telephone Interview No. Demotivating critical incidents Frequenc
y Percentage
1 Lack of promotion or raise in salary or other extra
benefits 10 51%
2 Lack of recognition (less praise or encouragement) 10 51% 3 Work itself (boring, too much repetition) 9 43% 4 Negative feedbacks from superiors or co-workers 9 43%
5 Perceived unjust treatment (compare with
co-workers or personal hard working 7 34%
6 Bad interpersonal relations (with superiors,
co-workers) 5 26%
7 Healthy problems (personal or family sickness or
death) 5 26%
9 Lack of enough support from organization 4 20%
10 Perceived gender discrimination 4 20%
11 Exceed one's job responsibilities 4 20%
12 Too much work 3 17%
13 Too much extra work hours 3 17%
14 Organization fails to meet its promises 3 17%
15 Being misunderstood by others 3 17%
16 Organizational, administrative mistakes 2 9%
17 Demotion or decrease of salary or bonus 2 9%
18 Lack of efficient supervision or too close
supervision 2 9%
19 Birth of a child 2 9%
20 Family problems (in bad relationship with family or
on divorce 2 9%
21 Bad mood (psychological problems) 1 5%
The table above shows participants’ responses during the pre-test study. According to the results, the most motivating factor in China is “Lack of promotion or raise in salary or other extra benefits” (51%) while “Bad mood (psychological problems)” (5%) was considered as the least de-motivating element in workplaces in China.
Actual Study Results
In analyzing for the K-means cluster, the variables were divided into the two groups, motivators, and de-motivators. These were then separately analyzed using the five predetermined clusters; the nature of work, development and fairness, relations with others, well-being and
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for the study population Age Gender Educational level Length of service in current company(yea rs) Total working years after graduate Job position N Valid 74 85 85 71 71 85 Missing 11 0 0 14 14 0 Mean 26.91 1.40 2.08 2.2068 3.8006 .94 Mode 24 2 2 1.00 1.00 1 Std. Deviation 4.253 .676 .929 2.79566 4.02527 .496 Minimum 20 0 0 .00 .00 0 Maximum 43 2 3 20.00 20.00 2 Sum 1991 119 177 156.68 269.84 80
The descriptive statistics shown in Table 4 above illustrates that most respondents were young (24 years), male with an education level of a bachelor’s degree and have worked at their current company at least one year. They also have a job experience of one year while working at the lowest job group in their respective institutions.
Motivators
Table 5: Final cluster centers of the 5 cluster groups
Cluster
1 2 3 4 5
Work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable assignments)
0 2 2 3 3
Perceived attention from
superiors and coworkers 0 2 0 3 2
Good interpersonal relations
with superiors, coworkers 0 2 2 3 3
More job responsibilities (added job content, improved job requirement)
0 2 2 2 3
Promotion or salary raise 0 2 3 3 3
Perceived support from
organization 0 2 2 3 3
well-being (housing, insurance, transport, paid-vocation)
0 2 3 3 2
Large income before
expenses (buy a house or car or family need)
0 2 2 3 2
Good working environment (good office, good
equipment)
0 2 3 3 3
Before regular assessment 0 2 2 2 2
Cluster
1 2 3 4 5
Achievement from work 0 2 3 3 2
Work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable assignments)
0 2 2 3 3
Perceived attention from
superiors and coworkers 0 2 0 3 2
Recognition (good feedback from others, praise from superiors and coworkers)
0 2 1 3 2
Expectation for promotion or
salary raise 0 2 3 3 3
Job security (to ensure being
hired) 0 2 2 3 1
The table above (Table 5) shows whether or not the respondents were discouraged or motivated by the test variables. Cluster 1 had responses of discouragement for all the test variables. Cluster 2, on the other hand, had a mix of being encouraged and the variable doing nothing for them. Table 6: Table of distance between final cluster centers
Cluster 1 2 3 4 5
1 6.976 9.076 10.326 9.670
2 6.976 3.556 3.453 3.306
3 9.076 3.556 3.109 3.238
Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 1 6.976 9.076 10.326 9.670 2 6.976 3.556 3.453 3.306 3 9.076 3.556 3.109 3.238 4 10.326 3.453 3.109 2.078 5 9.670 3.306 3.238 2.078
Table 6 above shows that clusters 1 and 4 are highly dissimilar (10.326) while cluster 2 is equally similar to clusters 3, 4 and 5, (3.556, 3.453, 3.306 respectively).
Table 7: ANOVA table of the test variables (motivating)
Cluster Error F Sig . Mean Square d f Mean Square d f Achievement from work
14.441 4 .363 8 0 39.82 2 .00 0
Work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable
assignments) 12.378 4 .451 8 0 27.45 7 .00 0
Perceived attention from superiors and coworkers
15.421 4 .374 8 0 41.27 2 .00 0
Good interpersonal relations with superiors,
coworkers 14.255 4 .290 8 0 49.21 8 .00 0
Cluster Error F Sig . Mean Square d f Mean Square d f Achievement from work
14.441 4 .363 8 0 39.82 2 .00 0
Work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable
assignments) 12.378 4 .451 8 0 27.45 7 .00 0
Perceived attention from superiors and coworkers
15.421 4 .374 8 0 41.27 2 .00 0
More job responsibilities (added job content,
improved job requirement) 10.453 4 .463 8
0 22.59
5 .00
0
Promotion or salary raise
14.383 4 .315 8 0 45.62 5 .00 0
Perceived support from organization
12.209 4 .369 8 0 33.09 3 .00 0
well-being (housing, insurance, transport,
paid-vocation) 17.154 4 .271 8 0 63.26 7 .00 0
Large income before expenses (buy a house or car or
family need) 12.467 4 .414 8 0 30.09 5 .00 0
Cluster Error F Sig . Mean Square d f Mean Square d f Achievement from work
14.441 4 .363 8 0 39.82 2 .00 0
Work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable
assignments) 12.378 4 .451 8 0 27.45 7 .00 0
Perceived attention from superiors and coworkers
15.421 4 .374 8 0 41.27 2 .00 0
Good working environment (good office, good
equipment) 16.822 4 .248 8 0 67.90 3 .00 0
Before regular assessment
10.131 4 .415 8 0 24.43 5 .00 0
Good organizational climate
15.913 4 .264 8 0 60.33 0 .00 0
Recognition (good feedback from others, praise from
superiors and coworkers) 14.720 4 .348 8
0 42.24
6 .00
0
Expectation for promotion or salary raise
17.246 4 .213 8 0 80.86 6 .00 0
Cluster Error F Sig . Mean Square d f Mean Square d f Achievement from work
14.441 4 .363 8 0 39.82 2 .00 0
Work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable
assignments) 12.378 4 .451 8 0 27.45 7 .00 0
Perceived attention from superiors and coworkers
15.421 4 .374 8 0 41.27 2 .00 0
Job security (to ensure being hired)
13.697 4 .390 8 0 35.16 0 .00 0
From the ANOVA table above the variables ‘more job responsibilities (added job content, improved job requirement)’ and ‘work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable assignment)’ had the greatest influence on forming the clusters during the variable ‘expectation for promotion or salary raise’ had the least influence on forming the clusters.
De-motivators
Table 8: Final cluster centers for the de-motivating variables
Cluster
Organization fails to meet its
promises 0 1 2 2 3
Perceived unjust treatment (compare with coworkers or personal hard working...
0 1 2 3 3
Perceived gender
discrimination 0 2 2 3 2
Lack of enough support from
organization 0 1 2 2 2
Being misunderstood by
others 0 1 1 3 2
Too much work 0 2 2 2 1
Healthy problems (personal
or family sickness or death) 0 1 2 3 2
Bad interpersonal relations
(with superiors, coworkers) 0 1 2 3 2
Comparison with similar level friends or college classmates
0 2 2 2 2
Work itself (boring, too much
repetition) 0 1 2 3 2
Too much extra work hours 0 1 2 3 2
Urgent work or near the
deadline 0 3 2 2 2
Cluster
1 2 3 4 5
Organization fails to meet its
promises 0 1 2 2 3
Perceived unjust treatment (compare with coworkers or personal hard working...
0 1 2 3 3
Perceived gender
discrimination 0 2 2 3 2
Lack of rotation of work 0 1 2 2 2
Lack of promotion or raise in
salary or other extra benefits 0 1 2 2 3
Exceed one's job
responsibilities 0 2 2 2 1
Negative feedback from
superiors or coworkers 0 1 2 3 2
Lack of recognition (less
praise or encouragement) 0 1 2 3 2
The table above shows whether or not the respondents were discouraged or motivated by the test variables. Cluster 1 had responses of discouragement for all the test variables. Cluster 2, on the other hand, had a mix of being encouraged and the variable doing nothing for them.
Table 9: Table of distance between final cluster centers Clust
1 6.736 7.490 10.983 8.432
2 6.736 2.544 5.017 3.381
3 7.490 2.544 3.725 2.333
4 10.983 5.017 3.725 3.123
5 8.432 3.381 2.333 3.123
The table above shows that clusters 1 and 4 are highly dissimilar (10.983) while cluster 2 is equally similar to clusters 3 and 5, (2.544, 3.381 respectively) while dissimilar to cluster 4 (5.017).
Table 10: ANOVA table of test variables (de-motivating) ANOVA Cluster Error F Sig. Mean Square df Mean Square df Organization fails to
meet its promises 11.772 4 .302 80 39.017 .000
Perceived unjust treatment (compare with coworkers or personal hard working... 13.590 4 .261 80 52.058 .000 Perceived gender discrimination 9.562 4 .361 80 26.509 .000 Lack of enough support from organization 8.658 4 .380 80 22.801 .000
ANOVA Cluster Error F Sig. Mean Square df Mean Square df Organization fails to
meet its promises 11.772 4 .302 80 39.017 .000
Perceived unjust treatment (compare with coworkers or personal hard working... 13.590 4 .261 80 52.058 .000 Being misunderstood by others 9.621 4 .307 80 31.384 .000
Too much work 7.584 4 .553 80 13.710 .000
Healthy problems (personal or family sickness or death) 12.330 4 .272 80 45.273 .000 Bad interpersonal relations (with superiors, coworkers) 10.095 4 .336 80 30.083 .000 Comparison with similar level friends or college classmates
9.964 4 .488 80 20.419 .000
Work itself (boring,
ANOVA Cluster Error F Sig. Mean Square df Mean Square df Organization fails to
meet its promises 11.772 4 .302 80 39.017 .000
Perceived unjust treatment (compare with coworkers or personal hard working... 13.590 4 .261 80 52.058 .000
Too much extra work
hours 9.157 4 .358 80 25.597 .000
Urgent work or near
the deadline 14.283 4 .481 80 29.720 .000
Birth of a child 9.418 4 .538 80 17.491 .000
Lack of rotation of
work 8.342 4 .294 80 28.370 .000
Lack of promotion or raise in salary or other extra benefits
12.642 4 .177 80 71.309 .000
Exceed one's job
responsibilities 7.439 4 .392 80 18.983 .000
Negative feedback from superiors or coworkers
ANOVA Cluster Error F Sig. Mean Square df Mean Square df Organization fails to
meet its promises 11.772 4 .302 80 39.017 .000
Perceived unjust treatment (compare with coworkers or personal hard working... 13.590 4 .261 80 52.058 .000 Lack of recognition (less praise or encouragement) 8.458 4 .318 80 26.625 .000
The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes because the clusters have been chosen to maximize the differences among cases in different clusters. The observed significance levels are not corrected for this and thus cannot be interpreted as tests of the hypothesis that the cluster means are equal.
From the ANOVA table above the variables ‘too much work’ and ‘birth of a child’ had the greatest influence on forming the clusters while the variable ‘lack of promotion or raise in salary or other extra benefits’ had the least influence on forming the clusters.
Discussion
5.1 Pretest/Pilot Survey Results
All the motivating and de-motivating variables collected from the telephone interview were included in Table 1. The frequencies and percentages for de-motivating variables were twice lower than the motivating factor frequencies. The trend may be because employees are more willing to express their satisfaction rather than dissatisfaction toward the organization while still part of that workforce (Vroom & Maier, 1961). Besides, Chinese people are known to have a high endurance score and consequently, their first instinct when dissatisfied is to ensure (Yang, 1986). The magnitude of variables’ impact on motivation listed in table 1a and table 1b follows a decreasing order of frequency.
From Table 1a, the variables ‘recognition, achievement from work’, ‘perceived attention from superiors and coworkers’, ‘good interpersonal relations with others’, ‘promotion and salary raise’ and ‘good well-being’ were top motivating factors as more than 50% mentioned them of the respondents. From Table 1b, there were only two critical incidents referred to by more than half of the respondents to de-motivate them in their jobs. The variables were ‘Lack of promotion or raise in salary or other extra benefits’ and ‘lack of recognition’.
5.2 The Actual Study Results
Table 2 shows means, standard deviations, K-mean clusters, and distances from the center of each cluster of the items in the questionnaire. The order of items increases from the distance from the center of each cluster to the order of means. Results shown in Table 2 come from the mean, calculation of standard deviation and analysis of K-mean clusters. From the table, means for each item in the first cluster is higher than 2.0, and the distance ranges between 0.033 and 0.236. Means higher than 2.0 and close to 3.0 indicated that items in the particular cluster are motivating factors that encourage hard work. In contrast, items in the second cluster have means lower than 2.0, and the distance range is from 0.039 to 0.324, except for two items, ‘before
regular assessment’ and ‘more job responsibilities’. The means for these two variables are 2 and 2.0513, and distances from the center of the cluster are 0.272 and 0.324 respectively. Means lower than 2.0 and close to 1.0 indicated that items in the cluster are de-motivating factors that encourage reduced effort at work. The two items that have higher means are all from the motivating incidents mentioned in the telephone interview. Sample discrepancy is probably responsible for these discrepancies.
Table 3 shows clustering results from the content analysis. Item identification, based on
Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1959), and distances from the center of each cluster are calculated from K-mean clustering analysis. Clusters were constructed using the similar content of items and ordered increasingly by its distance figures under each content cluster. There are five content clusters extracted by the similar content of items in line with the works of
Machungwa and Schmitt’s (1983) content clustering which describes each cluster in Table 3 by its content.
Table 5 shows the final cluster centers of the motivating factors grouped into the five cluster groups identified. As we can see cluster one had a score representing the least motivating center for all the factors mostly, while cluster 2, 3, 4 and 5 had a mix between the factor being neutral or being highly motivating to their work process.
1. Work Nature
Items included in this cluster were related to the intrinsic aspects of work. According to the results of the questionnaire, there were nine items on work nature. The three motivating variables included in this cluster were ‘work itself (interesting, challenging, suitable assignments)’, ‘urgent work or near the deadline’ and ‘achievement from work’. The de-motivating variables included were ‘work itself (boring, too much repetition)’, ‘too much work’, ‘lack of rotation of work’, ‘too much extra work hours’, ‘exceed one’s job responsibilities’ and ‘more job responsibilities (added job content, improved job requirement)’.
As shown in Table 3, these nine items, from both motivating and de-motivating variables, are the motivators based on Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Herzberg et al., 1959). According to
Herzberg’s theory, only the factors related to work itself, as the content of work and perceived psychological feeling, can bring satisfaction to employees and encourage them to work harder. Such factors and practices that make employees feel satisfied with work are known as
motivators.
Other factors related to the extrinsic aspects, like compensation and interpersonal relations in the organization, are all called the hygiene factors. In situations where employees complain about a practice at work, it is considered in the hygiene field. It is obvious that items in this cluster neither support the two-factor theory nor the items in other clusters. In the work nature cluster, there are six motivators that respondents thought lead to reduced effort at work. Additionally, some hygiene factors may encourage respondents to work harder at their jobs.
The variables ‘work is challenging and interesting’ and ‘the assignment is suitable’, were mentioned by many respondents about the nature of their work. This can be explained by the goal-setting theory of Locke and Latham (1990). Provided the goal has a suitable difficulty level while still in employees’ capability range then, the goal itself can be a motivator for employees. Further support for the goal-setting theory comes from the other items in the work nature cluster that is ‘urgent work or near the deadline’. This addresses the definitude of the goal. Locke and Latham’s goal-setting theory argues that the effectiveness of the goal is affected by two parts of the goal, difficulty, and the definitude. The variable ‘work is urgent or near the deadline’ is a specific requirement of time for the work at hand. However, the mean scores for these two items in Table 3 are not high, and their means only ranked third and fourth from the bottom in the motivating factors. The personality of the Chinese people probably explains this phenomenon because their perception of time is not exactly as it is in other countries, especially in western nations (Smith, 1894). As time goes by, employees in modern business environments will meet the exact time requirement; consequently, they would work much harder when the work is urgent. In contrast, the mean of the variable ‘achievement from work’ was among the highest variables that are in line with Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Most respondents reported working harder when the achievement from work was inappropriately perceived (Herzberg et al., 1959).
both from the telephone interview and questionnaire, to exert little effort in their work. The variable ‘Exceed one’s job responsibility’ is in line with Locke and Latham’s goal-setting theory, that the effectiveness of a goal is weak when the goal is ambiguous. The theory, however, argues that the most difficult the work is and the higher the requirement, the more effort employees will employ to their work. However, this is not supported in this research. Respondents reported that when they were facing more job responsibilities such as overtime and additional responsibilities, they would put less effort into the job. The reason for this, according to the respondents, is the lack of a good assessment system in their organization. Most of them did work for extra hours in the past during special periods, for instance, in cases of absent employees but what they got from their organization was mere compensation. Some of the respondents think that if they take the extra job, especially from coworkers who’ve quit, they might never get rid of that part of the job and would be compensated only a little portion of the compensation of the coworker who quit.
When the work itself is boring, and there is a lack of rotation, employees work less. This situation, as reported by most respondents, mostly happened at the start of their career in the organization. As a result, they chose to work in large international or multinational companies in the hope of advancing their careers. Apart from career development, most of them consider work content while choosing employers. This is in line with the comparative study done by Cooke and his coworkers (Cooke, Prouska, Xu & Wicks, 2007) between British and Chinese postgraduates in the UK. When selecting employers, Chinese young graduates are more likely to work for career development opportunities rather than the work itself. In China, when university students leave school to find a job, it is difficult for them to find an ideal job that fits their study major and one with a good salary due to a competitive environment. In 2009, there were more than six million university graduates of both bachelor and masters degrees in China but, only 74% of them could find a job in their first year of search (MOE.EDU.CN, 2011). According to the national education bureau, there were more than one and half million graduates who could not land a job in the same year.
2. Development and fairness
opportunities. There were eight items in this cluster, four good and four bad critical incidents. The variables ‘Promotion or salary raise’, ‘expectation for promotion and salary raise’, ‘job security (to ensure being hired)’ and ‘compared with similar level friends or college classmates’ were the four motivating factors. The four demotivating factors in the cluster were ‘perceived gender discrimination’, ‘perceived unjust treatment (compare with coworkers or personal hard working)’, ‘Organization fails to meet its promises’ and ‘lack of promotion or raise in salary or other extra benefits’. The variables ‘promotion or salary raise’ and ‘the expectation for
promotion or salary raise’ are strong motivators for employees to increase their effort at work. When motivating factors were absent, their willingness to work is hard is hurt and expected reaction is less. Means for these items were among the highest and the mean for the variable ‘lack of promotion or salary raise, or other extra benefits’ was the lowest. This is because
currently in China, young employees value their career advancement opportunities more than job security, which is valued more by older employees (Zimmerman, Liu & Buck, 2009). The
average age of respondents in this research is about 27 years; therefore, a low mean of job security would be expected as is in Table 2. Promotion and salary are the main outcomes employees may compare with Adams’ equity theory (Adams, 1963). Results from this research partly supported Adams’ equity theory. Employees reduced their effort when there was lack of promotion or salary raise which is in agreement with Adams’ prediction that when the ratio of present output and input is smaller than the ratio of past output and input. However, as reported by respondents, when the ratio is bigger than it was in the past, employees put more effort into their work contradicting Adam’s prediction in his formulation. According to Adams’ theory, people will not exert extra effort in their work when in this situation.
In Chinese culture, the face is an important concept that can be defined, in some situations, as Chinese people’s self-esteem (Hwang & Han, 2010). Employees will put extra effort in their work to save face and honor when compared with similar level friends or college classmates. As a result, the mean of this item was higher than 2.0 and has been considered as a motivating factor in this research.
The other three demotivating factors in this cluster are related to employees’ psychological contract. Results on this dimension supported the psychological contract theory, ‘when the
psychological contract is breached, negative attitude towards work and bad work performance is expected’ (Robinson, 1996).
3. Relations with others
A total of seven items grouped under this cluster were related to interpersonal relations in the workplace. Recognition like good feedback from others, praise from superiors and coworkers, good interpersonal relationship with them and perceived attention from superiors and coworkers are the three motivating factors in this cluster. Lack of recognition, like less praise or
encouragement and bad feedback from superiors and coworkers, bad relations with them and being misunderstood by others are de-motivating factors. Relationships with others can both motivate employees to put more effort into their work and de-motivate them to work less. Items in this cluster both ranked highly in the list of means in each cluster. Findings in this research supported the conclusions by Hui, Au and Fock (2004). Chinese employees value highly interpersonal relationships with others, especially with their superiors (Hui, Au & Fock, 2004). This can be explained as a reflection of Chinese traditional culture, the need for self-esteem. Keeping a good relationship with their superiors and getting praise from superiors is considered as having a face (Hwang & Han 2010). Employees are willing to put in extra effort to get a good relationship with their superiors similar to the Chinese citizens’ behavior (Hui, Au & Fock 2004).
4. Well-being
A total of five items included in this cluster were related to the physical environment and
employees’ personal lives. Unlike previous studies, a good working environment like good office and equipment ranked the highest in the motivating factors in this research. The face concept can explain this. To reflect self-esteem, people are willing to work harder to save face and keep face (Hwang & Han 2010). The telephone interview included some respondents from Deloitte, who expressed their willingness to take business trips to other cities, worked more than 10 hours a day for short-term projects and lived in a five-star hotel. To keep Deloitte’s company image, employees are required to stay in at least a four-star hotel when on a business trip. Well-being, like housing, insurance, transport and paid-vocation ranked among the top motivating factors as
well. These results agreed with the researcher’s prediction about the high-stress situation associated with life in big cities. China’s economy is growing at a high rate; reported GDP growth in 2009 was 8.7% with an average yearly wage of 32244 yuan. The average spendable income in the same year was reported at 17174.7 yuan and in urban areas an average price for new housing units was 15051 yuan per square meter (MSN, 2009). The average wage for Beijing was reported at 57779 yuan. Using the values of 2009, for instance, if an employee wanted to buy an apartment of 50 square meters in Beijing, then he will need to save money for 43.8 years if he doesn’t spend the money and apartment prices remain constant. Findings in this research echo those of Zimmerman (2009); that young graduate job seekers may be attracted by housing benefits offered by organizations. The variable ‘large income before expenses (buy car or house or family need)’ is another motivating factor as well. Katz and Kahn’s motivational framework (1978) is applicable in China’s environment. Multiple reward methods like housing benefits, insurance, and other well-beings can encourage Chinese employees to work hard.
The two de-motivating factors in this cluster are in line with the study done by Machungwa and Schmitt (1983). Factors such ‘Health problems experienced by employees or their family members’ and ‘birth of a child into a family’ would distract employees’ attention from work. However, these are subjective because for some people the birth of a child may drive them to work harder at work. Most respondents explained that their salaries were highly dependent on their job performance. Hence, they would need to work harder and save enough money to provide for their newborn. As a result, the mean of this item is very close to 2.0.
5. Administration
A total of two motivating and two de-motivating factors were grouped into this cluster were related to administrative practices and organizational environment. Good organizational climate and perceived support from the organization could encourage employees to exert more effort in their work. Means for these two items ranked average in the motivating factor list in Table 2. In contrast, lack of enough support from the organization could discourage employees from putting much effort into their work. The mean for this item was 2.0 and was ranked on average in the de-motivating factors list. The variable ‘regular assessment’ is treated as normal by employees.
Generally speaking, this factor may have nothing to do with motivating employees according to the result of this study.
5.3 Future Research
Since the pilot and the actual study were done mostly among young employees, the results may not be representative of the workplace. The researcher recommends more diverse studies, in different cities among various employees and enterprises to ensure better outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Employee motivation plays a crucial role in employment. It reduces turnover and also improves employee performance output. From the study, work motivation in China may be affected by five different factors. They include the nature of work, workplace development and fairness, relations with others, well-being and administration. According to the results obtained in the study, the factors mentioned above can act both ways; motivate or demotivate employees. Consequently, HR managers in large MNCs can incorporate some of these elements to motivate employees and retain talent. Corporations spend much money branding and creating a
prestigious name not only to sell but also to attract talents during recruitments. To maximize productivity and reduce employee turnover, HR managers should employ the factors described from the study to motivate their employees. For instance, they can improve the well-being of workers through the provision of workplace exercise equipment or day care centers for children of their employees. Also, ensuring fairness during promotions will motivate employees to work even harder. Promoting teamwork, competition, and sports activities or team bonding activities could also help foster better relations between employees. In terms of the nature of work, the HR can ensure that work allocated to each employee is manageable, fair and achievable. These
factors improve both the intrinsic and extrinsic workplace factors that challenge, interest and engage employees that eventually, motivates them to work in the company.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67: 422-436.
Chen, Z., Ge, Y., & Lai, H. (2011). Foreign direct investment and wage inequality: Evidence from China. World Development,
Child, J. (1996). Management in China during the age of reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chiu, R. K., Luk, V. W. M., & Tang, T. L. P. (2002). Retaining and motivating employees: Compensation preferences in Hong Kong and China. Personnel Review, 31(4), 402-431. Cooke, F.L., Prouska, R., Xu, T. and Wicks, N. (2007) ‘Career Aspirations and Recruitment
Skills of British and non-British Postgraduate Management Students in Manchester Business School: Identifying Career Skill Gaps and Enhancing Career Services Training’, project report (project funded by the Faculty of Humanities, University of Manchester, UK.) Herzberg, Mausner, Bernard and Synderman, Barbara B. (1959) The Motivation to Work, 2nd
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321-328.
Hui, M. K., Au, K., & Fock, H. (2004). Empowerment effects across cultures. Journal of
International Business Studies, 35(1), 46-60.
Humans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Hwang, K. K., & Han, K. H. (2010). Concepts of the face in Confucian society. The Oxford
Handbook of Chinese Psychology, 479.
International Monetary Fund, 2011. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund
Jackson, T., & Bak, M. (1998). Foreign companies and Chinese workers: Employee motivation in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(4), 282-300.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations.
Kelley, N. L., & Shenkar, O. (1993). International business in China Routledge.
Lawler, E. E and Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organization Behavior and Human Performance 9, 482-503
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Machungwa, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (1983). Work motivation in a developing country. Journal of
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828-847
Ministry of the commerce people's Republic of China, 2011. Retrieved from National
bureauhttp://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/statistic/foreigninvestment/201101/201101073 81641.html
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s4960/201012/113591.html MSN China, 2010. Retrieved from
http://msn.biz.smgbb.cn/MsnFinance/postPage/2009/08/28/posting_common_f2caf77c-5332-4453-bb81-735291e1eedf_4.shtml
National Bureau of statistics of China, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/qgndtjgb/t20110228_402705692.htm
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 574-599.
Smith, A. H. (1894). Chinese characteristics Revell.
Tubbs, M. E. (1993). Commitment as a moderator of the goal performance relation: A case for clearer construct definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 86-97.
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575.
Vroom, V. H., & Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Industrial social psychology. Annual Review of
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964 Yang, K.4 Chinese personality and its change.
Zimmermann, A., Liu, X., & Buck, T. (2009). Employee tenure and the nationality of joint ventures in China.
