MOTIVATION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATION

By Khadim Jan 1

Muhammad I. Ramay 2

&Tahir Masood Qureshi 3

1. Khadim JanPhD ScholarFaculty of Business Administration and Social SciencesMuhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad

2. Muhammad I RamayAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Business Administration and Social SciencesMuhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad

3. Tahir Masood QureshiFaculty Member/ PhD ScholarFaculty of Business Administration and Social SciencesMuhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad

Motivation in Public Organisations______________________________________________________________________________________AbstractMotivation is known as important as other factors for achieving the organisation goals.The high motivation led the employees to the extreme commitment with the organisationgoals. Similarly high employee motivation leads to greater employee creativity andproductivity, in this research paper it has been found that the two independent variables,which are quality supervision and participation, are positively related to the dependentvariable, motivation. The participation has a strong relationship level than the qualitysupervision with motivation. Results highlighted that all the tested variables arepositively correlated but correlation of participation (0.52), quality of supervision (0.30)are respectively.

Key Words: (Quality of supervision, Participation, Motivation, Public sector).

IntroductionMotivation is a force that drives people to do things. Employees are normally motivatedto achieve their needs, whatever they may include. Motivation is inside another person'shead and heart. It may be intrinsic or extrinsic. This is what we call motivation.Employees of a company will be motivated if they associate certain incentives with anactivity of work.

It has been seen in Pakistan that the employees in the public sector organisations are notmotivated as much as in the private sector. There are so many factors responsible for thisstate of nature. In this research the focus is that what are the factors responsible formotivation and its impacts on the organisation goals. There are different types of publicorganisation but for this research study the insurance companies that are owned by theGovernment have been selected. The research here will be pertains to the insuranceindustry but it can also be extended to other public sector organisations.

In this research the impact of the two independent variables will be seen on themotivation. Quality supervision is an aspect of immediate work environment, withsignificant implications for motivation (Parry & Porter, 1982). Similarly the NationalCenter for Productivity (1978) reported employee perceptions of lower supervisoryquality in the public than in the private sector. Parry and Porter (1982) also proved that inany event, quality of supervision is a critical element in motivational process.Participation involves some type of shared or joint decision making between supervisorsand subordinates at the work group, program, or organisational level (Parry and Porter,1982). They have further stated that one might expect that participation would contributepositively to motivational considerations like perception. Donald in his research paper,The Role of Organisations in Fostering Public Service Motivation, has stated that theempowering of the employees has a positive effect on PSM.

Literature reviewA challenging work environment and support of the top management is a very highmotivator (Horwitz et al, 2003). Similarly having regular contacts with the seniorexecutives is another factor for motivation (Horwitz et al, 2003). It was also proved byHorwitz et al (2003) that flexible work practices such as flexi-time does not guarantee themotivation. The ineffective practices may be potential dissatifiers and may not motivateintrinsically (Harzberg, 1966). A highly competitive pay package, with performanceincentives, seemed to be more important for attracting the employees than motivation(Horwitz et al, 2003). Higher employee motivation leads to greater employee creativity,productivity and discretionary effort which inturn lead to improved companyperformance (Gevity Institute, motivating your employees). In the same small businessguide it has been mentioned that businesses have the power to directly impact employeemotivation through their employee management practices. Collective bargaining is onevariant of participation (Porter and miles, 1974). It has been further stated by Porter andMiles, 1974 that participation would contribute positively to motivation.

Frederick Herzberg’s motivation theory also states that satisfaction of the employees isassociated with the non-monetary, or intrinsic factors like achievement, recognition,personal growth and the characteristics of the work. The intrinsic factors motivate theemployee. Similarly the dissatisfying or the extrinsic factors like company policies,salary, co-worker relations, supervisor relationship and job security etc. feels theemployee dissatisfied and less motivated. In the same management guide it has beenclearly mentioned that the perceived inequality has been shown to lead to low motivation.It has also been pointed in the guide that by investing the time will provide opportunitiesto employee motivation.

Porter and miles (1974) proved that the motivation energises, directs and sustainsbehaviour. They also identified four factor/variables namely individual characteristics,job characteristics, work environment and the external environment. If motivation is to beaffected, one or more of these variables must be changed or affected.According to Guyot (1961), government middle managers had higher needs forachievement and lower needs for affiliation than did their business counter parts, but theirneeds for power may roughly the same.

Rawls et al (1975) have found that standards about to enter government sector weresignificantly more dominated and flexible. They had higher capacity for status andeconomic wealth. (Paine, Carol & leete, 1966), (Rhinehart, Bamel, Dewalfe, Griffin &Spancer, 1969), (Rainey, 1979a, 1979b) indicate that public managers experiencesignificantly lower levels of satisfaction and motivation than do their counterparts in thebusiness.

The quality supervision is an important factor for motivation. The national centre forproductivity (1978) reported employees’ perception of lower supervisory quality in thepublic that in the private sector. The primary motivators for public sector employees are

the interests that attract them to public service (James L. Perry 1999). The organisationalservice learning has a significant positive effect on employee motivation (Hays and Hill1999). According to Donald P. Moynihan in his research paper, The Role ofOrganisations in Fostering Public Service Motivation, that PSM is strongly and positivelyrelated to the level of education. Higher pay and package is less important for publicservice managers (Rainy 1982). Donald also proved that the hierarchical levels in anorganisation would affect employee levels of PSM. Similarly the length of service withthe organisation also affects the PSM. Donald also proved another thing that men havehigher level of PSM than women.

Employees can be committed to the organisation itself due to an emotional attachment orbecause of the benefits associated with the organisation (Wright and Pandey 2005).Public Service Motivation (PSM) may represent a value based commitment to work,(Wright and Pandey, 2005). A relationship exists between employee motives and sectoremployment (Bradley E. Wright 2001). Work motivation is just one factor that influencesperformance (Bradley E. Wright 2001). Sector differences in performance rewards,procedural constraints, and goal content may influence work motivation directly (BradleyE. Wright 2001).

The observed behaviour in the public organisations can be understood only if citizens andpolicy makers are motivated by altruistic considerations (John King et al, 1992).Most of the managers in the public sector are motivated by productivity and serviceenhancement (John King et al, 1992). It has been further proved by John King et al, 1992,that lack of significance of variables such as organisational role and context suggests thatmotivations are not determine purely or even primarily by environmental factors. Theyare instead the result of more complex interactions among the environment, experienceand personality.

RationaleJames r. Perry and Lyman W. Porter have researched on the factors affecting the contextfor the motivation in the public organisation. In this research, the employees of theinsurance company that was a public sector company were surveyed. The impact of thetwo independent variables on the dependent variable that is motivation was seen.

Research questionWhat is the impact of Quality Supervision and Participation on Motivation?

Hypotheses

Hypotheses 1: Quality supervision is positively related to the Public ServiceMotivation (Parry and Porter, 1982).

Hypotheses 2: Participation is also significantly related to the public Servicemotivation (PSM).

Theoretical frame work

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

H1

H2

Research Methodology

Sample:About one hundred and fifty (150) questionnaires were sent to the employees of theinsurance company that is owned by the government. These employees were included theofficers from Assistant General Managers to Executive Officers (the starting grade). Onlyone hundred and twenty six (126) questionnaires were received back duly filled andcompleted.

Questionnaire:For this purpose a questionnaire was designed I which all the items were scored on a fivepoint Likert Scale with end points of “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”. Before this theJames L. Perry and Lyman W. Porter has conducted the research. They have consideredmore independent variables and its impact on the motivation. But in this research onlytwo of the independent variables were considered in the Pakistani environment in apublic sector insurance company.

Subject:The employees of the govt. insurance company based in Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi,Abbottabad and Peshawar were surveyed.

ProcedureThe two independent variables have been measured after collection of data. The impactof each independent variable has been seen separately on the dependent veriable, which ismotivation. It has been proved that each independent variable has positive impact on thedependent variable. The positive relation was also found between the independentvariable. As we have to establish the relationship between independent variables anddependant variable so we used the Pearson correlation to find the relation of theindependent variables with the dependent variable.

Quality Supervision

Participation

Motivation

Results

Characteristics of Target PopulationAlthough State Life has employed thousands of employees but the survey has beenrestricted to the officers of the five centers only. A total of 150 officers were asked tocomplete the survey questionnaires in these centers. Out of these 124 officers respondedmaking the response rate 83%. Keeping in view the limited number of officers in thesecenters the sample is sufficient for analysis of various results.

ConclusionOn the basis of the data collected it has been proved that participation is positively relatedto the motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982). Similarly quality supervision is also positivelyrelated to motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982). Donald in his research paper has alsoconcluded the same results that the empowering of the employees has a positive effect onpublic service motivation. Horwitz et al, 2003 has also proved the same results thesupport of the top management is very high motivator. Porter and Miles, 1974 has alsoproved that participation would contribute positively to motivation.The next variable participation and the data collected and analysed proved that it has alsopositively related to the motivation. The quality supervision is an important factor formotivation (National Centre for Productivity, 1978). Similarly Parry and Porter, 1982 hasconcluded that quality supervision has a significant implication for motivation. Hays andHill, 1999 has also proved that organizational learning has a significant positive effect onemployee motivation.

FindingsIn the above correlation table it has been established that participation has a relation levelof .52 and the quality supervision has .30 with the motivation. It means that participationis more strongly related to motivation in the public service motivation than qualitysupervision.My findings are consistent with the above stated researchers in spite of the fact that wehave conducted our research in the Pakistani environment. Because we have found on thebasis of our data a positive relationship of independent variables (Quality Supervisionand Participation) with the dependent variable (Motivation). Parry and Porter and otherresearchers have found the same results in their research. It has also been proved thathypotheses one is true because quality supervision is positively related to motivation. Incontrast to the hypotheses one, hypotheses two has also been proved to be corrected inthe sense that participation is more positively related to motivation than qualitysupervision. The two independent variables are also positively related with each other. Soin the light of the data it has been proved and we can say with confidence thatparticipation and quality supervision are both positively related to the motivation and itwas the findings of most of the previous researchers.

Direction for Future ResearchFuture research can be conducted in the areas like extending this one research toachieving organizational goals. Motivation levels of both male and females can be seen

separately. Motivation level of the employees with regard to their qualification can alsobe seen.

References:

Hyde, S.J; & Kling, C.K. (2001). Women, Motivation, And Achievement.: University ofWisconsin. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25 (2001).

Perry, L.J. (1999). Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation:Indiana University. 471/ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Motivating Your Employees (A Small Business Guide) Gevity Institute. 2005. GNGIN151 9-05 Gevity HR, Inc.

Perry, L. J; & Porter, W. L. (1982). Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation inPublic Organizations.: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. No. 1(Jan;1982), 89-98

Horwitz, M. F. & Heng, T.C. & Quazi, A.H. (2003). Finders, Keepers? Attracting,motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Human Resource ManagementJournal, Vol 13 No 4, 2003, Pages 23-44

Hays, M. J. & Hill, V.A. (1999). Gaining Competitive Service Value throughPerformance Motivation. Curtis L. Carlson School of Management University ofMinnesota.

Moynihan, P. D. & Pandey, K. S. The Role Organizations in Fostering Public ServiceMotivation. Forthcoming in Public Administration Review. Bush School WorkingPaper-505

Perry, L. J. & Kraemer, L. K. & Dunkle, D. & King, J. (1992). University of California.Motivation To Innovate In Public Organizations. Working paper-URB-026

Wright, E. B. & Pandey, K. S. (2005). University of North Carolina at Charlotte.Department of Political Science. Exploring the Nomological Map of PublicService Motivation Concept.

Wright, E. B. (2001). University at Albany-Sunny. Public-Sector Work Motivation: AReview of the Current Literature and a Revised Conceptual Model. 559/Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory. J-PART 11(2001):4:559-

Kim, J. (2006). University of Michigan School of Information. Motivating and ImpedingFactors Affecting Faculty Contribution to Institutional Responsibilities.

Houston, J. D. (2005). University of Tennessee. “Walking the Walk” of Public ServiceMotivation: Public Employees and Charitable Gifts of Time, Blood, and Money.

The Effects of Motivation on Performance. Copy right. (2004), essays.cc

A SURVEY ONMOTIVATION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

Dear Respondent!

I am a student of Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad. I am conducting a research onMotivation in public organizations , under the supervision of Prof. M. I. Ramay. Your responses are

strictly confidential. In no way will your name or your answers be revealed out. This questionnaire,which I am completing for my Motivation at Work, is designed to ascertain how you are motivated andwhether you motivate the people around you. I apologize for using your valuable time and hope thatyou will enjoy the questionnaire. (Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible)There are no right or wrong answers. Your response will reflect your own perception of how youmotivate or can motivate others at work. Do not spend too much time on a statement; generally yourfirst reaction is the most accurate.Please answer all the questions as best as you can. Thank you for your kind cooperation, support andcontribution towards this research.If you need findings of this research please send a request to ramay@jinnah.edu.pk

Age

0 20-30 0 31-400 41-50 0 51+

Gender

0 Male

0 Female

Highest Level of Education

0 Bachelors 0 MS/M.Phil

0 Masters0 Ph.D

Job

0

Admin/Tec

Income Level

0 20,000-30,000 0 31,000-40,0000 41,000-50,000 0 51,000+

Years with this Organization

0 Less than year 0 6-10 yrs.0 1-5 yrs. 0 10 or above

Years in thissector/Industry

0 Less than year0 6-10 yrs.0 1-5 yrs. 0 10 orabove

Quality Supervision

1 = Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3=Indifferent 4=Agree 5=StronglyAgree

1 My immediate supervisor is reasonable. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Provides regular feedback about my performance. 1 2 3 4 5

3 Acknowledge when I have performed well. 1 2 3 4 5

4 Allows me freedom to use my initiative in performing my job. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Encourages my input in to decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

6 Encourages and supports my career development. 1 2 3 4 5

7 My supervisor takes a flexible approach to issues arisingbetween work and family.

1 2 3 4 5

8 My supervisor communicates effectively. 1 2 3 4 5

9 My supervisor encourages suggestions for improvements. 1 2 3 4 5

Participation

1 = Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3=Indifferent 4=Agree 5=StronglyAgree

1 I enjoy working on moderately difficult (challenging) tasks andgoals.

1 2 3 4 5

2 I relate very well to people. 1 2 3 4 5

3 I am afraid of making mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

4 I involve my people in defining their roles and procedure ofworking.

1 2 3 4 5

5 I develop teamwork among the people who work for me. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I am uneasy and less productive when work alone. 1 2 3 4 5

7 I like to solicit ideas from others. 1 2 3 4 5

8 I like to accept responsibility in the group’s work. 1 2 3 4 5

Motivation

1 = Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3=Indifferent 4=Agree 5=StronglyAgree

1 I have high goals and expectations for myself. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I am confident in my ability. 1 2 3 4 5

3 I am eager to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5

4 I put forth the necessary effort to reach a goal. 1 2 3 4 5

5 I believe I can always improve. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I seek solutions to complex problems. 1 2 3 4 5

7 I take action on causes I believe in. 1 2 3 4 5

8 I make sacrifices today to benefit my future. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I accept responsibility for my actions. 1 2 3 4 5

10 I am optimistic about the future. 1 2 3 4 5

(Thank you very much for filling out this questionnaire, your help isappreciated. This questionnaire will help me to analyze how motivated theoffice is and how each person feels about the business.)

ANNEXURE: 1

Different characteristics of target population are as under:

Table: 1 Frequency: GenderGender Frequency PercentageMale 109 88%Female 15 12%Total 124 100%

Table: 2 Frequency: AgeAge Frequency Percentage20-30 11 9%31-40 61 49%41-50 27 22%51 & Over 25 20%Total 124 100%

Table: 3 Frequency: QualificationQualification Frequency PercentageBachelors 73 59%Masters 45 36%MS/M.Phil 4 3%Ph.D 2 2%Total 124 100%

Table: 4 Frequency: JobJob Title Frequency PercentageAdmin. 69 56%Tech. 55 44%Total 124 100%

Table: 5 Frequency: IncomeIncome (In 000) Frequency Percentage20-30 79 64%31-40 32 36%41-50 8 6%51 & Over 5 4%Total 124 100%

Table: 6 Frequency: ExperienceYears Frequency PercentageLess Then 1 Year 0 0%1-5 13 10.48%6-10 24 19.35%More Then 10 Years 7 70.16%Total 124 100%

ANNEXURE: 2

Table 7- Correlations

QS Part. Mot.QS 1Part. 0.32 1

Mot. 0.31 0.52 1

Table99- Descriptive Statistics

QS Part MotMean 3.8136 3.7893 4.1782Standard Error 0.0655 0.0447 0.0537Median 4.0000 3.7500 4.2000StandardDeviation 0.7294 0.4973 0.5975Range 3.1111 2.1250 3.2000Minimum 1.8889 2.7500 1.8000Maximum 5.0000 4.8750 5.0000Sum 472.8889 469.8750 518.1000Count 124.0000 124.0000 124.0000ConfidenceLevel (95.0%) 0.1297 0.0884 0.1062

Correlations

QS Part. Mot.PearsonCorrelation 1 .037 .136

Sig. (2-tailed) . .687 .133

QS

N 124 124 124PearsonCorrelation .037 1 .126

Sig. (2-tailed) .687 . .163

Part.

N 124 124 124PearsonCorrelation .136 .126 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .133 .163 .

Mot.

N 124 124 124

ANNEXURE: 3

Regression

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation NMot. 3.90 1.139 124QS 3.85 1.057 124Part. 4.19 .703 124

Correlations

Mot. QS Part.Mot. 1.000 .136 .126QS .136 1.000 .037

PearsonCorrelation

Part. .126 .037 1.000Mot. . .066 .082QS .066 . .343

Sig. (1-tailed)

Part. .082 .343 .Mot. 124 124 124QS 124 124 124

N

Part. 124 124 124

Variables Entered/Removed (b)

ModelVariablesEntered

VariablesRemoved Method

1 Part., QS(a) . Entera All requested variables entered.b Dependent Variable: Mot.

Model Summary (b)

Model R R SquareAdjusted R

SquareStd. Error ofthe Estimate Change Statistics

R SquareChange F Change

df1 df2 Sig. F Change

1 .182(a) .033 .017 1.129 .033 2.073 2 121

a Predictors: (Constant), Part., QSb Dependent Variable: Mot.

ANNEXURE: 4ANOVA (b)

ModelSum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Regression 5.288 2 2.644 2.073 .130(a)

Residual 154.349 121 1.276

1

Total 159.637 123a Predictors: (Constant), Part., QSb Dependent Variable: Mot.

Coefficients (a)

Model

UnstandardizedCoefficients

StandardizedCoefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for B

BStd.Error Beta Lower Bound

UpperBound

1 (Constant) 2.527 .707 3.57

2 .001 1.126 3.927

QS .142 .096 .131 1.469 .144 -.049 .333

a Dependent Variable: Mot.

Coefficient Correlations (a)

Model Part. QSPart. 1.000 -.037Correlati

ons QS -.037 1.000Part. .021 -.001

1

Covariances QS -.001 .009

a Dependent Variable: Mot.

Residuals Statistics (a)

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation NPredicted Value 3.20 4.22 3.90 .207 124Residual -3.076 1.797 .000 1.120 124Std. Predicted Value -3.339 1.554 .000 1.000 124Std. Residual -2.723 1.591 .000 .992 124

a Dependent Variable: Mot.

ANNEXURE: 5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Regression Standardized Residual

0

5

10

15

20

25

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 2.91E-17Std. Dev. = 0.992N = 124

Dependent Variable: Mot.

Histogram

ANNEXURE: 6

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Observed Cum Prob

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Expe

cted

Cum

Pro

b

Dependent Variable: Mot.

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual