staff motivation in small food manufacturing enterprises

7/29/2019 Staff motivation in small food manufacturing enterprises

1/14

BFJ101,9

654

British Food Journal,

Vol. 101 No. 9, 1999, pp. 654-667.

# MCB University Press, 0007-070X

Staff motivation in small foodmanufacturing enterprises

Richard Bent, Claire E.A. Seaman and Arthur IngramDepartment of Business and Consumer Studies,

Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Keywords Food industry, Motivation, Job satisfaction

Abstract Examines the factors which affect staff motivation and satisfaction in small foodbusinesses. Explores previous theories of motivation. Thirty-eight small food processing andmanufacturing companies in Scotland formed the sample. Interviews and open-ended semi-

structured questionnaires were employed in the research. Results emphasise the importance of themanagement style of the owner/manager particularly when it comes to factors such as ``lack ofappreciation'', ``poor communication'' and ` training''.

IntroductionThe food manufacturing industry is a highly competitive sector which, in thecase of small business food manufacturers, often remains relatively labourintensive. One of the major issues for competitive advantage, therefore, is thesuccessful motivation of staff. Despite a plethora of theories (Locke andLatham, 1990a; 288) which have analysed work based motivation andsatisfaction, however, theories remain commoner than the evidence to supportthem.

Though research has been conducted into both the small business sector andthe food manufacturing sector there has been little attempt to combine thesefactors or to examine the factors that affect staff motivation and satisfaction insmall food businesses (Bent and Freathy, 1997). Where research into employeerelations has been conducted, it has tended to be amongst larger businesseswith the major theories tending to focus on the major players in the businesssector. Given the highly competitive nature of the food manufacturing sector,the domination of large manufacturers and the increase in demands placed onthe industry by price competition, food scares and health and hygienelegislation, it is vital to address employment issues that owners/managers ofsmall food manufacturing organisations can directly influence, address and,almost as importantly, understand. The issues of work based motivation and

satisfaction is one area where this theory applies and where research may bevital to tackle issues which can be tackled at little cost. There is also a lack ofresearch looking at staff motivation in small manufacturing enterprises(SMEs), of which food manufacturing is an example that can provideinformation and insights into the problems faced by the wider range of SMEsin the UK manufacturing sector.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

Earlier work in this field which was carried out with Paul Freathy at the University of Stirlingis acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Claire Forbes for her contribution todata collection.


2/14

Staff motivatioin small foo

enterprise

65

It is likely that one of the main reasons that small organisations haveremained neglected is due to the small number of persons employed byeach business and the difficulty of gaining access for research. Further, eachbusiness may only have a small number of persons employed and eachbusiness is likely to have its own specific problems and issues. This researchwill attempt to identify common characteristics of motivation and satisfactionthat exist in the sector. Identification of factors that are common to the sectoracross a number of organisations will begin to allow owners/managers theinformation from which to assist them in addressing employee motivation/satisfaction and focusing any increases in the levels towards improvedperformance. Given the lack of specific research into the issues of staffmotivation/satisfaction within the small food manufacturing arena and thepartially hypothetical nature of the approach, our study is designed to partlyidentify the viability of further research into this area.

Satisfaction and motivationThere is a wide variety of theoretical frameworks that have been developed andused in attempts to explain the issues of motivation and satisfaction. Thesehave been primarily drawn from and developed within the field of psychologyand have often taken contradictory and opposing standpoints in theirtreatment of the subject area. Locke (1991) has attempted to draw togethermany of these views into a more holistic approach (Figure 1).

The ``motivational sequence'' attempts to create a more logical approach tothe often diverse views by grouping the different schools of thought into abroader conceptual framework and by noting that many of the areas of dispute

are triggered by the existence of different theories that are not contradictory

Figure The motivati

sequen


3/14

BFJ101,9

656

but, rather, which are component parts which all play a role in the widermotivational process. The aim of this paper is not to provide a critique of thismodel or to develop further the theoretical foundations upon which it is based.It is rather to use the model as an adequate means for understanding

motivation and satisfaction within a specific type of organisation. The paperwill, however, use the Locke model as an organising framework and will, whereappropriate, apply the principles within it to the small business foodmanufacturing sector. The rest of this section will briefly outline each of thedifferent stages of the model.

An adequate definition of motivation and satisfaction is vital, for both thetheoretical issues and in order for the respondents in the study to clearlyunderstand the difference and so avoid confusion during the interview process.Although motivation is a broad and complex concept, organisational scientistshave agreed on its basic characteristics summarised as ``the set of processesthat arouse, direct and maintain human behaviour toward attaining a goal''.Satisfaction is defined by various authors including Locke (1991), as theoutcome of a motivational process. Locke (1991) however notes that there are arange of theoretical views over what drives/creates motivation and leadstowards a feeling of satisfaction or a satisfactory outcome for the individual.Locke (1991) suggests that this confusion results from the fact that manytheories are constituent parts of a wider motivational sequence. Maslow's(1943) original hierarchy, based on five levels of need, has been widelydocumented, adapted to the business environment and criticised. Of particularrelevance to this paper, is the applicability of the original model in anorganisational context. On one side authors (Torrington and Hall, 1995; Parker

and Chusmir, 1991) note the ability of an individual to progress through thelevel of needs without any reference to the workplace citing earlier studies (TheAmerican Dream, 1987; Korn, 1988; Gallup et al., 1986) in which individualshave progressed through the hierarchy of needs noting subjective or intrinsicfactors outside of the working environment. The other major criticism of thisapproach has been the static interpretation of events which are often dynamicand ever changing. Individuals by their very diverse nature and differingsituations give a priority upon different needs at different times and in differentsituations. This suggests that they are not, as Maslow interprets, exclusive ofeach other and are variable over time. Such needs may therefore be completelysatisfied upon one occasion and remain unsatisfied on others.

Despite such weaknesses in its development, issues of human need have notbeen fully rejected. The exact needs that exist Existence, Relatedness andGrowth have also been intensely debated by Aldefer (1969) who suggested analternative formulation with the ERG theory in which only three categories ofneeds are identified and notes that they do not occur in any specific order andcan be activated/deactivated at different times. Deci and Ryan (1985) proposethat people have innate needs for competence and self-determination. Some,such as Locke (1991), believe that these two elements may be drawn togetherunder an individual's own value system. It can therefore be argued that if


4/14


enterprise

65

individuals retain their own personal beliefs and motives for action, thechallenge for the employer will be to positively stimulate or address theseneeds. However, one of the many characteristics of a small business is the lackof resources available to the employer and therefore the time or the expertise in

which to identify individual's motivations and values. It may only be possibleto set goals that satisfy a proportion of the individual's wishes, are perhapsmore general in nature and where they coincide directly with the company'sobjectives.

The challenge then for the management or owner of a small foodmanufacturing business, therefore, is to attempt to direct existing or increasedemployee motivation into beneficial business areas. From this, a debate on thelinks between motivation and productivity springs, which will be discussedlater in this paper. This then moves the debate away from how or why anindividual is motivated towards mutually productive areas. Achieving thisremains difficult, and some authors such as Latham and Locke (1987), maintainthat the best an organisation can hope to do is direct their human resourcestrategy toward the areas that may produce complementary effects.

Over the past 40 years, there has been some academic controversy as towhether greater job satisfaction leads to improved performance. On thebusiness side many managers seem to follow the simple belief that ``happyworkers are productive ones''. Parker and Kleemeir (1951) stated that acompany that was able to satisfy its workers would, as a result, improve itsown productivity. The opportunity to participate in the decision makingprocess may increase job satisfaction, with the positive attitudes generatedaiding productivity. Other findings suggest that the picture is more

complicated and question the direct association (Schwab and Cummings, 1970;Locke and Latham 1990a), while an earlier study by Vroom (1964) showed acorrelated relationship of only 0.14 between satisfaction and performance.Later work by Locke (1991), however, has attempted to avoid this essentiallystatic and subjective argument, maintaining that such a relationship can neverbe proved or disproved. Certainly in the case of many occupations andespecially within a manufacturing environment, there is often little scope forlarge changes in performance. Jobs are often structured so that the personholding them must maintain at least some minimum level of performance. Ifthey do not, they cannot retain their jobs. Furthermore, there is often littleleeway for exceeding these minimum standards. Even if an individual

increases his or her own input, this may have no overall impact on the businessdue to the need for input towards the final product by other employees. Theresult may then have a negative effect with the individual who has increasedproductivity finding themselves with little to do and the possibility of boredomand frustration resulting. Second, it could be the case that job satisfaction andproductivity are not directly linked. The apparent relationship between themcould result from the fact that they are linked to a third factor-various reward..Porter and Lawler (1968) suggest a possible scenario to illustrate the point. Pastlevels of performance lead to the receipt of both extrinsic rewards (for example


5/14

BFJ101,9

658

pay or promotion) and intrinsic rewards (for example, feelings ofaccomplishment). If an employee judges these rewards to be fair, they maycome to perceive a link between their performance and these outcomes. This, inturn, may have two effects, firstly encouraging high levels of effort, and sogood performance and secondly, it may lead to high levels of job satisfaction.Thus high productivity and high job satisfaction may both derive from thesame conditions and yet the two factors themselves might not be directlylinked.

Controversy also surrounds the issue of whether an individual's motivationwill influence their job performance. While the meaning of the wordperformance is, itself ambiguous, Weiner (1986) maintained a variety of factorsto their behaviour and their future actions. The strength of this approach is thatit does not directly attribute performance to an individual's motivation. Given,as discussed earlier, an individual's motivations are constantly changing, it

remains too simplistic to say that performance will directly mirror thesefluctuations. Also with the number of both extrinsic and intrinsic factors thatan individual will be constantly exposed to, it would be extremely difficult toisolate a basis for measuring the extent to which their level of motivation orsatisfaction influences performance. Attribution theory (Weiner, 1986),therefore, suggests that performance is determined by a combination ofperceived individual sources (such as ability, skill and effort) and externalforces (such as organisational rules, policies and management behaviour).Proponents of expectancy theory such as Vroom (1964) expand the scope ofmotivational theory. It tends to classify individuals as rational beings whothink about what they have to do in order to gain rewards and how much that

reward means to them before they perform their jobs. The theory suggests thatpeople are motivated to work when they expect to achieve things that theywant from the work place. It is important to note that expectancy theory viewsmotivation as just one of several determinants of job performance. Thusexpectancy theorists would argue that clarifying people's expectancies andrelating it to the workplace will increase job performance and labourproductivity.

The notion of ``reward systems'' have a tendency to focus upon financialrewards for some minimum or set level of performance. This limited definitionexcludes intangible rewards such as simple praise or co-worker/customer

interaction. The importance of these intangible rewards were identified byemployees in earlier research conducted by Bent and Freathy (1997). It is at thereward stage that the people are able to assess what they have obtained fromthe effort that they perceive that they have put into their job. Consequently,actions that are rewarded and reinforced have an increased likelihood of beingrepeated (Adams, 1965; Kerr, 1975). It is at the reward stage that the individualis able to make a general assessment of whether the rewards meet as many ofthe needs as is practically possible. It is important to note that the applicabilityof rewards to the individual is another issue. It would be a mistake for an


6/14


enterprise

65

employer to assume that all employees care about having the same rewardsmade available to them and in some companies cafeteria style (self select)benefits are being made available.

The concept of satisfaction represents the final stage of the Locke model.Again the differences between individuals need to be stressed as what satisfiessome workers will probably be different, even if just by its degree, from whatsatisfies another. Herzberg's (1966) theory of intrinsic/extrinsic factorsinfluencing satisfaction has been criticised by those who argue that such adivide is too simplistic (Locke, 1976). Later authors have focused upon thefactors that satisfy the needs of the individual and are obtainable from theworkplace (Cooper, 1973; Hackman and Oldman, 1976; Locke and Henne 1986;Stone, 1986). This type of theoretical proposition reinforces the concept of GoalTheory (Locke and Latham, 1990b) which ties in personal goals as both targetsto aim for, and a means by which to measure one's own performance

(Robertson, 1990). Locke (1969, 1976) maintains that effective work design is animportant method by which a company can assist an employee in achieving asatisfying work experience. Once more the job characteristics most likely toachieve the maximum level of employee satisfaction vary not only with theindividual needs but also by elements, such as gender, race and education(Lambert, 1991). Grossman (1992) suggests that many employers fail torecognise the importance of involving the employee in the setting of bothdesired goals and rewards. Furthermore, there is a need on the part of theemployer to continually monitor performance, ensuring that employees arefocusing on the correct goals and importantly have the resources or trainingavailable to achieve them. Also the employer must ensure that from the

employee's point of view that scheme does not necessarily become stale orirrelevant to changes in their personal goals. It is also important to note that ascheme may become expected by the employee and the effectiveness of its useas a management tool over time will decline.

The discussion has so far focused generally upon the issues surroundingemployee motivation and satisfaction. The conceptual model put forward byLocke (1991) has acted as an organising framework and a more holisticapproach to the different theories and issues. An important strength of thismodel is its emphasis upon the dynamic transition rather than staticinterpretation. Individual needs both in the workplace and outside are

potentially limitless and will change and develop constantly.The aim is now to identify the implications that such a model has for theunderstanding of satisfaction and motivation in the small food manufacturingsector. As with the earlier study into the small business retail sector (Bent andFreathy, 1997) such issues in small organisations differ from those of largecompanies in that the flexibility in operations and potential for being closer tothe employee that often characterise small businesses may allow managementto better match company aims and objectives with those of the individualemployee (Wiley, 1992). It is therefore the employer's/manager's responsibility


7/14

BFJ101,9

660

and of paramount importance to direct stimuli or address issues towards theindividual in a way that not only satisfies the employee's needs but alsocombines these with the needs of the business.

MethodologyTo accurately examine the nature of motivation and satisfaction in the smallfood manufacturing sector, a number of limitations have had to be drawn in themethodology. Amongst the most important have been the sectoral and spatialconstraints imposed. In order to reduce the number of non-comparablevariables, such as different skill levels and job differences, it was necessary toensure that companies in the sample were operating in comparable fields.Therefore, it was decided that only one type of sector should be used (smallfood processing/manufacturing). Furthermore, the exploratory nature of thestudy combined with the time/depth required of the interviewees predisposedthe research towards the initial use of one, clearly defined geographical area,thus ensuring that all suitable businesses could be approached and included atthis developmental stage.

The focus of the study was, consequently, upon small food processing/manufacturing companies operating in the Lothian area which are involved ineither the processing or manufacturing of food to be sold in their own shops ordistributed to other outlets. The sample was drawn from companies identifiedby the Scottish Enterprise Food Team classifications as having under 50employees with approximately 100 such businesses initially identified. Allbusinesses that fitted the initial criteria were approached through the owner/manager. Of these, several were ruled out as they were part of a larger chain,

declined to take part in the sample, operated only by the owners/family. Thus, atotal of 38 businesses were included in the final sample.Having selected the type and number of businesses, it was decided to

interview employees from the food production lines who did not havemanagement or supervisory experience. This allowed for the interviews to beconducted amongst a comparable level of staff in all organisations. Futureresearch was also planned to analyse to look at the views and opinions of theowners/managers. One hundred and forty-four employees were interviewedacross the 38 businesses approached.

An open ended, semi-structured questionnaire was delivered in the workplace on a face-to-face basis away from the owner/manager. The questionnaire

and approach taken was similar to that of the previous study by Bent andFreathy (1997) into employee motivation and satisfaction in the independentretail sector. The questionnaire had been developed in three parts. The firstsection was used to collect demographic profiles of employees. The secondsection was designed to identify the perceptions of respondents to working insmall food manufacturing businesses. Each respondent was initially givenidentical definitions of motivation and satisfaction. Respondents were thengiven the opportunity to list up to five work related factors (five for each factor)that they considered motivated/demotivated and satisfied/dissatisfied them.


8/14


enterprise

66

The most significant responses to each of these categories are illustrated inFigures 2-5. The final section used two scales previously developed by Warret al. (1979, p.129) to measure ``work attitudes and the psychological aspects ofwell being''. These had been shown by the others to have good internalreliability and to be factorially separate in earlier studies. Scale 2 (intrinsic jobmotivation) and scale 5 (job satisfaction) were chosen as they allowedemployees to reply to specific points (for example, pay and responsibilityissues) as well as provide a generalised measurement of intrinsic jobmotivation and job satisfaction. The main purpose of this was to allow a set ofmeasurements that could be used in future in comparison studies.

All interviews were conducted by the same researcher to ensure a degree ofconsistency. Confidentiality was emphasised, and the individual wasencouraged to speak freely. All respondents were interviewed separately, andeach session was in-depth, lasting between 30 and 45 min.

The results section of the paper identifies the main findings of the research.One set of calculations that needs to be clarified further relates to Figures 2-5.In determining the factors that have influenced a respondent's motivation andsatisfaction, respondents were encouraged to define up to five different factorsfor each of the four questions. Pre-testing found that five different factors wereadequate to cover the likely number of responses from most individuals. Ifrespondents were unable to come up with five factors then the number statedwas accepted. Each respondent's individual factors were then, if applicable,matched with other respondent's factors to allow for groupings of similarfactors to be expressed together (for example, the need for money wasexpressed in a number of different ways by individuals but clarification by the

interviewer allowed these responses to be identified as being the sameperception). As the study was designed to look for common factors across thesector these groupings were then analysed to see which are the mostsignificant. Figures 2-5 illustrate those factors which were identified by greaterthan 20 per cent of respondents (0.2). Conversely, if a factor was to be identifiedby all respondents, the score for that factor would be 1.

Figure Major causes

demotivati


9/14

BFJ101,9

662

Figure 3.Major causes ofmotivation

Figure 4.Major causes ofdissatisfaction

Figure 5.Major causes ofsatisfaction


10/14


enterprise

66

Results and discussionThis section will briefly examine the demographic profiles of the respondentsbefore going on to highlight their motives and levels of satisfaction.

A number of demographic questions were raised by the research. The first

concerns the issue of who works in the small business food manufacturingsector in the Lothian area. There was no major difference between males (52.1per cent) and females (47.9 per cent) employed in the sector with 111 (77.1 percent) being aged 40 years and under. The largest cohorts by age were 16-20(26.4 per cent), 21-30 (27.8 per cent) and 31-40 (22.9 per cent). The researchrevealed that the majority of employees (52.1 per cent) had worked for theircurrent employer for over three years with (31.3 per cent) having five or moreyears service. An examination of the highest educational qualifications of thegroup revealed that (27.1 per cent) had no formal qualifications however, (43.8per cent) had obtained Scottish Higher or above. This was higher than expectedas pre-research in the recruitment section of the Scotsman newspaper forcomparable jobs rarely required any level of formal qualification. This isperhaps a symptom of the difficulty of finding suitable employment in the areaand/or the difficulty with employment conditions in out of town areas favouredby many small food manufacturers. However, this study did not seek todetermine the reasons behind why the employees had obtained/remained atthese jobs.

Respondents were asked to complete, using a five-point Likert scale, firsthow currently motivated they felt and then how satisfied they felt in their jobs.The degree of positive motivation was high, with 84.0 per cent stating that theywere either very or moderately motivated in their jobs (37.5 per cent and 46.5

per cent respectively) and 77.1 per cent stating that they were highly ormoderately motivated in their jobs (31.3 per cent and 45.8 per cent respectively).It was noteworthy that no respondents stated that they were either verydemotivated or very dissatisfied with their job. The second section of thequestionnaire asked respondents to rank up to five factors that they feltmotivated/demotivated and satisfied/dissatisfied them. The most significantcategories are illustrated in Figures 2-5.

Results from this study suggest that importance of the management style ofthe individual owner/manager of a SME business within the food manufacturingsector cannot be over-estimated. Issues which are illustrated in Figures 2-5,which are associated with individual management style include the lack of

appreciation which staff perceived management to feel for their work (35 percent) and poor communication appeared to be both demotivating and a cause oflow job satisfaction (24 per cent and 26 per cent respectively). This contrasts withthe identification by staff of the motivating/satisfying qualities of goodmanagement style (22 per cent and 39 per cent respectively). Training was anissue raised by a significant number of respondents both in terms of trainingmaking a positive contribution to job motivation and in terms of lack of trainingor poor training operating as a demotivating factor (37 per cent and 24 per centrespectively). The importance of these issues lies with their status as issues


11/14

BFJ101,9

664

which can be influenced both by the owners/managers of SMEs within the foodmanufacturing sector but also because such issues are relative to the provisionmade to encourage economic development by organisations such as enterpriseagencies, trade associations, local Chambers of Commerce or Technology

Transfer Programmes.The issue of staff selection and the importance of staff compatibility where

individuals work in relatively close proximity and are likely to share the sameworkplace over a number of years was another crucial issue highlighted by thedata collected as part of this project. While initially staff compatibility mightappear to be a relatively obvious aim for a manager, the issues which wereraised are perhaps more subtle than is immediately obvious to recruiters; theowners/managers of SMEs in the food manufacturing sector or to researchersworking in this areas. Despite the perception that the work which was actuallycarried out was often repetitive and boring (41 per cent and 22 per centrespectively). Twenty-eight per cent of people who took part in this study notethat their fellow workers are a cause of job satisfaction, highlighting theimportance of less tangible and often less immediately obvious factors inmotivating staff. Since changing the fundamental nature of the jobs carried outby individuals working in this sector will generally be impractical, theimportance of boosting factors which contribute to increased job satisfactionand motivation cannot be underestimated. Increasing the likelihood that agroup of individuals employed in the workplace will complement each otherand will generate the type of atmosphere which will improve job satisfactionand motivation is therefore a valuable objective in itself, with clear importanceboth during the recruiting process and as a longer term management objective.

The importance of fellow workers is supported by the earlier work by Bent andFreathy (1997), but this study also emphasised the fragile nature of a positiveworking atmosphere and highlighted the problems which an individual recruitmay trigger if the positive atmosphere of the workplace is disrupted. Issues ofteam-building thus become critical management issues which may be almostmore important where the ``team'' is small and the business small enough toensure that the same co-workers will be together on almost all working days.

Examining the broad range of issues across the sector allows individualfirms to be made aware of factors which exist in their area of business andwhich may have an important effect on the workplace motivation and jobsatisfaction of staff in their individual firm. The issues which were identified

by this project can be considered in two broad categories, one of which can beinfluenced by the management and one where the problems are generallyinherent in the nature of the work carried out by firms in this sector and whichare likely to be less easily influenced by individual management styles.

A dichotomy emerged from the opinions summarised in this project,whereby the ` job itself'' was seen as a fundamental motivator and as a source ofsatisfaction but where issues such as the repetitive and boring nature of the joband the long hours involved with this type of work were acknowledged. Whilefurther work would be required to confirm the reasons for this apparent


12/14


enterprise

66

dichotomy, it seems likely that the issues of fellow workers, money matters,training, fitting in with lifestyles and the act of being paid were seen as anintegral part of the job, which contributed to positive motivation andsatisfaction. Limited scope for employers exists in this sector for redesign or

removal of some of the negative factors, mentioned above, but given awarenessof the critical issues, the possibilities of that adaptation or the redesign ofcertain elements of individual jobs may be possible.

ConclusionsThe primary aim of the study was to examine whether sector-wide factorswhich influence workplace motivation and job satisfaction exist in SMEswithin the food manufacturing sector, and to assess the relative perceivedimportance of different factors. Little research has been carried out in this area,in part because of the relative difficulties inherent in obtaining a reasonablesample from businesses which, by their very nature, employ only smallnumbers of staff, and perhaps also because of the relative difficulties of gainingaccess to employees in this sector. It is understood that in the foodmanufacturing sector, where business is highly competitive and there may belittle scope for significant changes to work practices, owners/managers willfind it useful to identify issues where there is the potential to improveworkplace motivation or job satisfaction without major financial implications.Results from this study suggest that sector-wide themes which influenceworkplace motivation and job satisfaction exist and, while predicable themessuch as low pay are evident, important other issues surrounding managementstyle were highlighted by the staff surveyed (Figures 2-5). The existence of

common, sector-wide themes has highlighted that, despite the relativedifficulties associated with collecting data from employees in this sector andnoting that each firm will have individual characteristics, it is possible toidentify that broad issues exist across SMEs in the food manufacturing sectorand therefore open up the possibilities for a wider research and increased depthof analysis.

The issue which remains is the relevance of sector-wide issues in foodmanufacturing SMEs to both larger food manufacturing firms and to thebroader range of manufacturing industry. While more research would berequired to confirm this, it appears that many of the workers included in thisstudy took up their present employment primarily because the job suited their

lifestyle, rather than because the food industry was a specific career choice.This conclusion is supported by the acknowledgement of minimal promotionprospects which was commonly associated with good or very good jobmotivation and satisfaction. It is considered that many other sectors ofmanufacturing industry employ people whose primary motivation for seekingemployment is linked to the perception that the job ``fits'' their lifestyle, and forwhom the factors associated with job motivation and satisfaction which wereidentified as part of this study are likely to be relevant. As SMEs are unlikely tohave any specific training officer or personal department, the results of this


13/14

BFJ101,9

666

work will primarily be of interest to owners/managers of SMEs. In addition,many of the issues highlighted can be only minimally influenced by theworkers themselves and it would primarily be the owner/manager who wouldbe responsible for tackling the issues raised.

One question which remains is the extent to which the owners and managersrecognise and perceive similar or different traits to be important in themotivation/satisfaction of staff. It is hypothesised that owners and managers ofSMEs will perceive subtly different issues to be relevant and important, due tothe nature of their contact with staff. Furthermore, it is hypothesised that theremay be differences between the views of owners and managers, who may haveobtained their position via different career paths. In order to develop thishypothesis, further research at Queen Margaret University College is nowfocused on interviewing owners/managers and obtaining their views on whatmotivates and satisfies their staff. To ensure comparability of data, currently

only the owners/managers of the firms studied in this project have beenapproached. The data collected will form the basis of a subsequent paper,allowing detailed analysis of the factors considered relevant by owners/managers. Furthermore, the opportunity to compare staff perceptions, ownerperceptions and the perceptions of managers will present itself.

References

Adams, J.S. (1965), ` Inequality and social exchange'', in Berkwitz, J. (Ed), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Alderfer, C.P. (1969), ` An empirical test of a new theory of human needs'', OrganisationalBehaviour, Plenum, New York, NY.

Bramham, T. (1994), ` Human resource planning'', Institute of Personnel and DevelopmentLondon, 2nd ed., pp. 14-27, 136-45.

Bent, R. and Freathy, P. (1997), ``Motivating the employee in the independent retail sector'',Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 201-8.

Cooper, R. (1973), ``Task characteristics and intrinsic motivation'', Human Relations, Vol. 26,pp. 386-413.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in HumanBehaviour, Plenum, New York, NY.

Gallup, G. et al. (1986), The Great American Success Story, Dow Jones, Irwin, Homewood, IL..

Grossman, J. (1992), Small Business Reports, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 50-9.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldman, G.R. (1976), ``Motivation through the design of work: a test of a

theory '', Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.Herzberg, F. (1966), The Motivation-Hygiene Theory Work and The Nature of Man, Chapter 6,

World Publishing Company, Cleveland, OH.

Kerr, S. (1975), ``On the folly of researching A, while hoping for B'', Academic ManagementJournal, Vol. 18, pp. 769-83.

Korn, L. (1988), The Success Profile, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

Lambert, S.J. (1991),Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 12, pp. 341-63.

Latham, G.P. and Locke, E.A. (1987), ``Goal setting a motivational technique that works'',Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 82, pp. 68-80.


14/14


enterprise

66

Locke, E.A. (1969), ` What is job satisfaction?'' Organisational Behaviour and HumanPerformance, Vol. 4, pp. 309-36.

Locke, E.A. (1976), ` The nature and causes of job satisfaction'', in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbookof Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.

Locke, E.A. (1991), ``The motivation sequence, the motivation hub and the motivation core'',Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 288-99.

Locke, E.A. and Henne, D. (1986), ``Work motivation theories'', in Cooper, C. and Robertson, I.(Eds),International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Wiley, Chichester.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990a), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990b), ``Work motivation and satisfaction: light at the end of thetunnel'',Psychological Science, Vol. 4, pp. 240-6.

Maslow, A.H. (1943), ` A theory of human motivation'',Psychological Review, Vol. 50, pp. 370-96.

Parker, W. and Chusmir, L.H. (1991), ` Motivation needs and their relation to life success'',HumanRelations, Vol. 44, p. 12.

Parker, W. and Kleemeir, A. (1951), Human Relations in Supervision: Leadership andManagement, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Porter, L.W. and Lawler, E.E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood IrwinDorsey.

Robertson, L. (1990), ``Prediction of job satisfaction from characteristics of personal work goals'',Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 11, pp. 29-41.

Schwab, D.P. and Cummings, L.L. (1970), ``Theories of performance and satisfaction: a review'',Industrial Relations, Vol. 9, pp. 409-30.

Stone, E.F. (1986), ``Job scope job satisfaction and job scope job performance relationships'', inLocke, E.A. (Ed.) Generalising From Laboratory To Field Setting, Lexington Books,Lexington, MA.

The American Dream (1987),A National Survey by the Wall Street Journal, Dow-Jones, New York,

NY.

Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1995), Personnel Management: HRM in Action, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

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

Warr, P. et al. (1979), ` Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects ofpsychological well-being'', MRC Social and Applied Psychology Unit, University OfSheffield.

Weiner, B. (1986),An Attribution Theory of Motivation, Springer Verlag, New York, NY.

Wiley, C. (1992), Create an Environment For Employee Motivation, University of Tennessee atChattanooga, TN.

staff motivation in small food manufacturing enterprises

Documents