Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Work Motivation

Motivating employees to make important contributions on their jobs can have a profound
impact on organisational effectiveness. According to George and Jones (2005), motivation is
key to comprehending and managing organisational activities and changes as it explains why
people act as they do in the organisation. One of the most researched topics, mainly within
the concept on how an organisation behaves is Motivation. It is thus apparent that motivation
is an issue within an organisation.
One of the main duties of managers is to motivate its employees. The first question that arises
is: “why managers need to motivate employees?” (Herzberg, 1959). It is because for the
continuity of the company in the long-term (Smith, 1994). According to Amabile (1993), it is
crucial that managers and organisational superiors learn to manage and deal efficiently with
their employee’s motivation level; since motivated employees are vital for the achievements
of the institution in the future century. She further argues that demotivated employees put
little effort in the production process, they are usually absent from the workplace, leave the
organisation causing the labour turnover of the institution to rise and they provide poor
quality of work.
In the case whereby employees are motivated, they are more competent towards handling
organisational changes which may arise (Lindner, 1998). Furthermore, Lindner argues that the
most complex responsibility of the managers is to motivate employees; it is because what
motivates employees changes invariably (Bowen and Radhakrishna, 1991). Motivation is
crucial in organisations because in concurrence with capability and environment, it regulates
performance (Moorhead & Griffin, 1998). Nel et al. (2011) predicate that motivation is a
complex topic due to the uniqueness of people and the variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors
that have an effect on it. If an employee is motivated towards working and achieving goals
and objectives for the organisation he or she works, this is surely to bring about an increase
in their job performance and eventually they may experience a rise in job satisfaction.
Therefore, it can be claimed that a relationship exists between work motivation and job
satisfaction of almost every organisation.
Thus, motivation and job satisfaction is an important topic to study and understand as the
success of any organisation or company lies in an employee being motivated and also provides
a comprehension about which measures could be enforced to increase job satisfaction in
organisations. This aspect is supported by Grunenberger (1979) who postulates that work
motivation and job satisfaction studies are significant to enhancing the conditions of
employees in major aspects of their lives. The author also theorizes that increasing the
motivation and satisfaction experienced by the employees may cause a rise in the production
capacity and profitability of organisations.
Moreira, Fox and Sparkles (2002) state that teacher’s motivation is interconnected to their
willingness and effort in doing their job and to their keenness to remain in the education
sector; teachers who are dissatisfied with their work may choose different possibilities with
more appealing prospects for work performance, career building and quality of life.
It can be further argued that the effect of teacher’s motivation to teach depends on the
students’ motivation to learn (Jesus & Lens, 2005; Recepoglu, 2013). Thus, Rasheed et al.
(2010) highlight that motivated teachers confer to the development of educational quality
and the growth of students into being good citizens. The author, Bishay (1996) identified a
positive relationship between teacher’s motivation and student’s performance, while
Michaelowa (2002) and Otube (2004) state that demotivated teachers bring about an adverse
impact on education quality and student’s learning and wellbeing.
It is clear that managers need to motivate employees to attain the targeted aims and outcome
for the organisation. In addition, it can be said that there is agreement about the facts that
motivation is an independent occurrence, it is described as being purposive, it is multifaceted
and that the aim of motivational theories is to foresee behaviour. It can be concluded that
there is an ongoing debate on defining motivation and recognising the factors that bring
about motivation among employees. However, for the aim of this study, teachers’ motivation
refers to the incentive which builds up the institution teachers’ efforts to meet their work
objective within the educational context.

2.1.1 Definition of Work Motivation

The word “motivation” is derived from the Latin word movere, which is referred to as “to
move” (Nelson & Quick, 2000). According to Kızıltepe (2008), motivation is one of the
common research areas, especially in the psychology and education fields. Several researches
conducted on this topic have provided the authors with a variety of definitions over the
decades. Malik and Naeem (2008) consider the widening number of definitions, but discuss
that most relate to the idea of stimulating enthusiasm to attain particular aims. In the same
way, Robbins (2003) states that motivation is the willingness to apply greater amount of effort
to meet the organisation’s objectives and is determined by the effort’s capability to satisfy
some individual need. An unsatisfied need causes stress, which propel individuals towards
working to their maximum level to avoid these kind of tensions. If these unsatisfied needs are
achieved, this will cause less tension and more motivation to work within the workplace.
Campbell (2007) specifies that motivation is a theory that gives indication to an individual
about how they should tackle with their jobs, and the emotional drive and intuitive
circumstances which assist or restrain movement in that direction. Schunk, Pintrich and
Meece (2008) endorse this content based on the direction of an individual’s goals, whereas
Ryan and Deci (2000) have a different view, in which they identify motivation to basis for
actions determined by individuals concerning their work, which may be ascribed to intrinsic
or extrinsic factors. In addition to this, it has been argued that the motivation of an individual
relates to the internal effort influenced by individual features which may vary from time to
time (Lindner, 1998; Roos & Eeden, 2008). However, these elements are subject to particular
needs and incentives of individuals. Campbell and Pritchard (1976) further discusses:
Motivation is associated with a varying set of independent or dependent elements,
correlations that describe the direction, amplitude and determinance of an individual’s
action, keeping constant the effect of one’s ability, mastery and apprehending of the job, and
the restraints operating in the environment.
In regard to this, Halepota (2005) explains motivation as a hypothetical concept which is
linked to several approaches that induce a range of outcomes at distinct points in time.

2.1.2 Theories of Work Motivation

The different theories of motivation assist in understanding the concept of motivation and
what motivates individuals. According to Georges and Jones (2005), the theories answer the
following questions such as:

 What really motivates people?

 Why are they motivated?
 How do they retain their motivation?
The theories provide answers to these questions by outlining what lead employees to act in
a certain way at workplace. The theories of motivation can be classified into content
theories and process theories.
According to Schermerhorn et al. (1994), process theories attempt to understand the
perception process that arise in the minds of people and that act to motivate their behaviour.
The process theories which are discussed for this study comprise the Equity Theory and
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. The author also analyses that both the content and process
theories of motivation is interconnected to one another. In contrast, content theories provide
methods to study individuals in order to recognize the needs that motivate their behaviour at
work (Schemerhorn, Hunt & Osborn).
According to Grunenberger (1979) Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg’s Two Factor
Theory and Theory X and Y have been explained by Campbell as content theories of
motivation. As a comparison, content theories are directly related with job satisfaction while
process theories are relevant with efforts associated with the task and their involvement of
performance.

Content theories
2.1.2.1 Herzberg’s Two-factor theory
Herzberg (1959) developed a well-known motivation theory, namely the Two-Factor Theory;
his theory is based on motivators and hygiene factors. The factors could be either motivators
or hygiene factors, but cannot be both at the same time. Herzberg built his research on
motivation by asking the labour force to give their opinion on two statements (Worrell, 2004).
After interpreting the statements, along with his co-workers, Herzberg came forth with the
two factor theory which is also known as the motivator-hygiene theory. They found that the
respondents were dissatisfied with different factors as causes of work dissatisfaction
subsequently called “dissatisfiers” or “hygiene factors” compared to as they were with the
factors which provide them with sufficient satisfaction, subsequently called “satisfiers” or
“motivator factors” (Schermerhorn et al., 1994).Below is figure which contains examples of
hygiene factors and motivator factors:
Figure Hygiene factors and Motivator factors

The motivator factors are intrinsic factors which motivate employees to use their full
capability in order to attain their greatest level of achievement for the job they do (Roberts,
2005). The actualisation of higher level necessity such as achievement, recognition and
opportunity for growth is linked with the motivator factors (Worrell, 2004). Hygiene factors,
also known as, extrinsic variants relate to the environment and help mainly to prevent job
dissatisfaction.
The true motivators are determinants that cause job satisfaction and are directly linked to
work content and factors leading to dissatisfaction are hygiene or maintenance factors
(Stone, 2005). The author further affirm that Herzberg concluded that the sole motivators
existing in a job can bring workers’ satisfaction and performance and that hygiene factors do
not motivate individuals however, lack of these factors within a job can lead to job
dissatisfaction.

2.1.2.2 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Employees are motivated to satisfy five basic classification of needs as represented in a five-
tier model of human needs (Worrell, 2004). Schermerhorn et al., (1994) assume that these
needs are classified into two categories: the higher needs which are represented on the top
of the model are the self-fulfilment and self-esteem needs and the lower needs found at the
bottom of the model are belongingness, safety and physiological needs.
The first level need of Maslow’s hierarchy is the physiological need which comprises of basic
life prolonged needs such as water, food, shelter and sex. The second level need includes the
physical and financial safety needs. The next level of needs is for socialising with people,
belonging and love. The fourth level needs represents self-esteem needs, that is, employees
feel that they are important for the organisation and they are recognised for the work they
do. Lastly, self-actualisation needs which is found at the higher level of the organisation
involves needs such as being independent and working to full potential of oneself whereby
organisational goals are being met.

Figure Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Source: Stone (2005)

Figure above indicates the various levels of needs.

Stone (2005) provides that, for an individual to satisfy their higher level of needs, they must
firstly be able to satisfy their basic needs. Therefore, in order to achieve the second level need,
all individuals must be able to satisfy their physiological needs which would require them to
have a job and receive the basic salary.

According to Ott, Parkes and Simpson (2008) Maslow’s study of needs can be summarised as
follows:

 All individuals have needs that is key to motivating them to work harder in order to
move to the top level of the hierarchy, i.e. the self-actualisation needs.
 When lower level needs are satisfied, they no longer drive performance.
 Needs which have already been satisfied are not motivators.
  Higher level needs become the motivating factors when the lower level needs of
workers are satisfied.

Maslow’s theory forewarns managers of the potential threat that may arise if employees’
needs are left unsatisfied which may cause their attitudes and performance at work to fall
significantly decreasing their motivation level. The organisation should also consider the fact
that once a need has been satisfied, it no longer appears as an effective drive of employee
behaviour (Stone, 2005).

2.1.2.3 Theory X and Theory Y

McGregor developed a better understanding on people’s motivation based on Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs. According to Ott et al. (2008) in its totality, it is a cogent articulation of
the basic assumptions of the organisational behaviour perspective. McGregor identified two
definite perspectives of individuals: firstly, one negative labelled as Theory X and the second
one positive labelled as Theory Y (Robbins, 2003). Furthermore, the author states that a
manager’s view on the basic attributes of human beings is built on certain assumptions and
he or she is likely to mould his or her behaviour towards the workers based on these
assumptions.

The assumptions are summarised in table below:

Theory X Theory Y

1. People do not like work and try to avoid 1. People do not naturally dislike work: work
it. is a natural part of their lives.

2. People do not like work, so managers
have to control, direct, direct, coerce and
threaten employees to get them to work
towards organisational goals.
3. People prefer to be directed, to avoid
responsibility and want security: they have
little ambition.
2. People are internally motivated to reach
objectives to which they are motivated.
3. People seek both responsibility and
accept responsibility under favourable
conditions.

4. People are resistant to changes. 4. Management has a duty to provide safe

working conditions and effective methods of
operation so that people can attain their
own goals best by directing their own efforts
towards meeting organisational aims.
McGregor presumes that the assumptions of Theory X are convenient for workers motivated
by lower level needs, that is physiological and safety needs, whereas Theory Y presumptions
suit employees who are motivated by higher level needs (Nelson & Quick, 2000). Robbins
(2003) affirms that there is no proof to justify that either set of assumptions is reliable or that
adapting Theory Y and changing one’s action will result in a rise in workers’ motivation. In a
specific situation, either Theory X or Theory Y may be applicable.

The Process Theories of Motivation

2.1.2.4 Equity Theory
The equity theory of work motivation was developed in the 1960s by Adams (George & Jones,
2005). Equity theory (Adams, 1963) relates with the feelings of the latter about how their
managers act towards them compared with their co-workers. Satisfaction is derived on an
individual’s perspective of equity, which determines the balance between inputs and outputs,
allowing collation with others. This means that, the theory focuses on relative under-reward
of the individual and over-reward of others, which may lead to employees being mistreated
and this will further result in dissatisfaction and demotivation of work (Griffin & Moorhead,
2010; Agarwal, 2008).

Equity theory is divided into three important features concerned to the conception of
motivation: inputs, outcomes and referents. As illustrated in Figure 3.4, workers use
resources to an allocated task which are also referred to as inputs (e.g. experience,
professionalism, and qualifications) while work-related benefits (e.g. salary, fringe benefits,
reputation, achievement and advancement, work safety) are known as the end-result. The
inputs and outputs of an individual are contrasted with those of their colleagues within the
organisation (Georges & Jones, 2005). If input or outcome ratios are kept at equal level, job
satisfaction will arise, as employees are more motivated to maintain the ratios at the same
extent; as a result they increase their resources therefore leading to a rise in production. If
inequitable ratios or under-rewards are deduced, unfairness and job dissatisfaction will arise
among the employees (Adams, 1963).
Inequity leads to tension, which is unappealing, hence employees are likely to reduce this
inequity by either augmenting or diminishing their inputs or outputs compared with the other
individuals. Again, this theory has been criticised. Equity theory is based only with workers
who are satisfied with their salary but does not include several facet of work (Gruneberg,
1979). Vroom (1969) states that it is complex and inappropriate to test, while Mowday (1987)
is uncertain whether employees with higher salaries will be unhappy. Workers’
interpretations about equity and inequity may not be factual and also disagree immensely as
to how responsive they are to equity ratios and the balance of favouritism (Riggio, 1990).
Donovan (2002) considers a transparency concerning the differences individuals create, an
equity theory does not provide an explanation on how referents are selected. Accordingly, no
practical examination of this process has yet been conducted. Lastly, the theory impractically
considers that only one referent is applied to assess their inputs or outcomes. However,
researchers including Muchinsky (2000) and Jost & Kay (2010), have a favourable view on
equity theory. Bolino and Turnley (2008) declare that it has gained consequential attention,
mainly from organisational scholars. Furthermore, research by McKenna (2000) and Sweeney
(1990) have shown that the equity theory has assisted to better understand the concept of
job satisfaction and motivation.

2.1.2.5 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

Vroom’s theory is based on the understanding of the interaction between personal and
organisational variables. There are certain presumptions on the expectancy theory about
what actions people take when deciding to act. According to Champoux (2000), below are the
four assumptions fundamental to the Expectancy theory:

 Forces in the surrounding and the employees connect to influence performance.

 People decide between a varied set of activities.
 People make their decisions based on favouritism as a result of those actions.
 The selection among the different possibilities are reasonable and are based on how
a person views the gain of the outcome of several actions. An individual tends to
advance towards results valued in a positive form and evade from outcomes valued
negatively.
Individuals form their opinions based on the incentives they acquire depending on their
performance (Roberts, 2005). This theory assumes that if employees increase their capability
to work therefore entailing to a rise in the production level, they will be rewarded for it
(Worrell, 2004).
Expectancy theory outlines that a worker will decide to behave depending on the tendency
that their performance will result in specific benefits which are well-favoured to them. To
have a better apprehension of this theory, Vroom proposes that managers need to
understand the following three aspects:
  Expectancy (effort-performance link): where employees believe that if they work to
their full potential, this will lead to more production.
 Instrumentality (performance-reward link): employee believes that accomplishment
of a task at a desired level will effectuate a favourable outcome.
 Valence (attractiveness): the merit or significance that a worker puts on a probable
outcome or reward that can be attained.

The individual’s own predictions of achievement, gains and targeted satisfaction results; not
only the outcomes of the aims themselves; will stimulate his or her level of effort (Robbins,
2003). In a simple way, the expectancy theory assumes that employees are motivated by
predicting how much they desire for something, what amount of it they expect they will get,
how probable it is that their actions will lead them to achieve it and how much their co-
workers have received in related situations (Ott et al.,2008).

Figure Example of an individual’s thought processes as viewed by the expectancy theory

Employees decide how hard to work

Choice A Choice B

Much effort Little Effort

High Acceptable
Performance Performance

Big Pay Average Pay

Increase Increase

Transfer to Stay In
Sydney Melbourne

Source: Stone (2005)

2.1.2.6 A comparison between Content and Process theories
This study aids in apprehending and demonstrating work motivation and job satisfaction, by
illustrating their complex and multifaceted nature and stimulating that all theories in this
field, whether of content or process, are centred on how human act and how the
management works towards managing these behaviours. Mullins (2008) argues that all have
their disadvantages and none is complete in scope. In simple terms, no theory is certainly
better than the other. While needs theories are vastly used to research on work endeavour
and satisfaction obtained, expectancy theory is used in the forecasting of how employees
behave in the workplace and equity theory hypothesises on the research of employee needs
and effort (Landy & Becker 1987).

2.2 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been the most commonly researchable element in organisational
behaviour (Spector, 1997). Job satisfaction differs and researchers like Peretomode (1991)
and Whawo (1993) have put forward that the more employees acquire status and
importance, the greater will be the job satisfaction at the workplace. In other terms, they
should simply appreciate what their jobs require them to do. Job satisfaction varies as it
comes from one’s own perspective or feelings.
Job satisfaction is affected by a number of elements and some examples can be the quality of
one’s relationship with their supervisors, the working condition of the coorporation in which
they work and the extent to which they are committed in their jobs. However, no strong
affirmation have been given by researchers, analysts, etc., that if a rise in the job satisfaction
level will always result in better performance at work. It can also bring an adverse effect
whereby higher job satisfaction may lead to lower job performance (McNamara, [n.d]; War,
1998).
Hackman and Oldham (1975) discussed that jobs vary to the level in which they include the
five main features: variety of skills, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and task
feedback. Furthermore, they outlined that if jobs are planned in a manner that comprises
these five main attributes, three major emotional state can take place in employees: (1)
knowledgeable meaningfulness of task, (2) experienced management for work results and (3)
understanding of the outcomes of work undertakings. When these analytical psychological
conditions are effectual, work motivation and job satisfaction will increase.
Individuals are normally assigned several tasks to complete at work. Job satisfaction is
regarded as an intuitive reaction to certain characteristics or duty of the job role according to
Lawler (1973). Ashour (1988) concurs that job satisfaction is more or less the degree of
satisfaction that can be achieved through the distinct facets or elements of the job or
occupational roles. Lastly, Ladebo (2005) views job satisfaction in relation to its favourable
effects and gains achieved through the different phases of a worker’s service, or by
accomplishing particular features of the job.
2.2.1 Definition of Job Satisfaction
The term satisfaction, stemmed from the Latin words satis and facere which means enough
and do or make respectively (Oliver, 2010), symbolise happy or pleased feelings as a result of
an achievement of someone (Longman Modern English Dictionary).
The last few decades have witnessed ample endeavours to define the particular term ‘job
satisfaction’ (Giese & Cote, 2000; Okaro, Eze & Ohagwu, 2010). Locke (1976) proposed a
definition that has become amongst the most commonly used and it describes job satisfaction
as the assessment or rating of an individual’s job that prompts a “pleasurable and positive
emotional state”.
Nevertheless, there are ample authors and researchers that suggest there is no unanimous
agreement when it comes to the concept of job satisfaction (Bernal, Castel, Novarro & Torres,
2005; Evans, 1997; Giese & Cote, 2000; Monyatsi, 2012; Oplatka, & Mimon, 2008). Whilst
Rhodes, Neville and Allan (2004) claims that the attempts to define job satisfaction
unanimously were subjected to conceptual issues, Evans (1997) suggests the concept of job
satisfaction itself is subjected to fundamental ambivalence in terms of whether it pertains to
situations considered acceptable or it refers to situations viewed as meeting all the
requirements of the job rewardingly.
Consequently, Al-Owaidi (2001) suggest the complications of the concept of job satisfaction
itself lead to the concept being interpreted in numerous ways. Okaro et al. (2010) additionally
explains the problematic notion of job satisfaction includes several linked components.
Interestingly, Al-Amri (1992) seeks to explain the complexities by attributing the different
interpretations of the concept to differences in the culture, beliefs, values and environment
of the different writers. Likewise, the differing contexts and settings of the utilisation of the
term “job satisfaction” where it can be deemed as a need, attitude, feeling or attribute further
complicates the process of defining the term.

As such, Luthan (1998, as cited in Ajeni and Popoola, 2007) postulated three fundamental
sides of job satisfaction.

 Firstly, job satisfaction is about responding emotionally to a job situation which

imply the inability to see it physically and that it can only be felt psychologically.

 The second perspective explains that job satisfaction often depends on how well
targets have been met or expectations surpassed. For instance, positive attitude
towards the job is more likely to occur when employees feel fairly and equitably
rewarded than a situation where employees feel they are being rewarded less for their
determined efforts compared to others employees that hardly bother to even put in
effort.

 The last dimension to job satisfaction, explained by Lauthan, are the numerous linked
attitudes of job satisfaction which are the most crucial features of a job that people
 respond to effectively. These crucial features, according to Luthans, are the work
itself, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and co-workers- and all these affect
job satisfaction, as explained by Robbins, Odendaal and Roodt (2003, as cited in
Adams, 2007).

2.2.1.1 Definition of teachers’ job satisfaction

The theory of job satisfaction involves several facets of a person’s psychological propensities
and the surrounding conditions in which they work, all of which may give rise to satisfaction
or favourable effect towards one’s job.
In the academic framework, according to Lawler (1973), teachers’ job satisfaction is related
with the duties and responsibilities they fulfil within the institutions; it is an effective
relationship between teachers’ willingness to teach and what they require from the job, both
of which are appraised through their own beliefs. Ho and Au (2006) agrees with this
statement, stating that teachers’ satisfaction is a composition of what they require from their
profession and what they really acquire from it.
There are several conclusions on the theory of job satisfaction based on the definitions
discussed above. Therefore, in accordance with the research aims and literature review, this
analysis assumes the following definition: Teachers’ job satisfaction relates to common and
determined positive feelings and perspectives of secondary school teachers in the UDM
educational framework, equivalent to the needs they presume to be satisfied by their job.

2.2.2 Theories of Job satisfaction

2.2.2.1 Reference Group Theory
Reference group theory relates to a belief that workers differentiate between their inputs and
outcomes from his/her tasks to others, for example his/her colleagues, co-workers, and
others in the organisation. This theory can simply be applied in the academic context as
teachers and administrators usually contrast between pay and benefits among districts.
According to Hulin and Blood (1968), in order to better understand the concept of job
satisfaction, the comprehension of the groups to whom the individuals identify themselves is
crucial.

2.2.2.2 Discrepancy Theory

Many researchers are in favour of the discrepancy theory when assessing individuals’
satisfaction. According to them, satisfaction is based on the ground of the real result a person
obtains and some other outcome level. There are vast differences between the theories as
one person derives satisfaction on the other outcome level he/she believes should obtain,
and for another person it is the only the output level the person assumes to gain. Most of the
theories discuss that what is obtained should be contrasted with the other outcome level,
and when these outcome levels differ whereby the actual outcome acquired is lower than the
other outcome level, this will lead to dissatisfaction. An example of this statement can be that
if an individual assumes he will be satisfied with additional salary, the argument is that he will
be unsatisfied than the one who obtains a salary of Rs 9000 and expects he should gain a pay
of Rs 10000.
Locke has outlined the discrepancy theory in various ways. Firstly, Locke relies on the fact that
the ascertained discrepancy is crucial, and not the real discrepancy. He further discusses that
satisfaction is influenced by the clear distinction between that the person desires and what
he wants to acquire. Dissatisfaction will result when his requirements will surpass what he is
actually receiving. Locke states, “Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are the result of the
perceived relationship between what one desires from one’s job and what one perceives it is
providing.
Another theorist known as Porter evaluates satisfaction by interrogating people what amount
of a likely outcome should be present in their job and how much of a given result there truly
is; he reviews the discrepancy to be the most substantially used. In contrast to Loke’s point of
view, Porter’s discrepancy theory views satisfaction as being determined by how much a
person feels he should achieve and not by how much a person wants.
Most discrepancy theories discuss on the probability of a person saying he is obtaining more
results than he should actually receive, or more outcomes than he wishes to obtain. However,
the theories do not lay emphasis on this fact, which may represent some issues for them. It is
not comprehensible how to identify dissatisfaction (or whatever this feeling may be called)
due to over-reward with dissatisfaction due to under-reward.

2.2.2.3 Dispositional Theory

Dispositional Theory is also a prominent theory of job satisfaction. It is very prevailing theory
that indicates that human beings have instinctive tendencies that influence them to have
propensities towards a specific level of satisfaction, disregarding someone’s job. This concept
turned into an important interpretation of job application in consideration of evidence that
job satisfaction conduces to be stable over time and across jobs and careers. Research also
reveals that same level of job satisfaction is presented in identical twins.

A momentous model that simplified the purview of the Dispositional Theory was the Core Self
evaluations Model which was suggested by Timothy A. Judge in 1998. Judge asserted that
there are four Core Self-evaluations that resolve one’s propensity towards job satisfaction,
namely self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism. This model asserts
that higher position of self-esteem (the value one establishes on his/her self) and general self-
efficacy (the belief in one’s own capability) prompt to higher work satisfaction. Possessing an
internal locus of control (believing one has control over her/his own life, in contrast to outside
forces gaining control) bring to higher job satisfaction. Lastly, lower levels of neuroticism
prompt to higher job satisfaction.

2.2.2.4 Affect Theory

Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is contentious the most eminent job
satisfaction model. The essential asset of this theory is that satisfaction is resolved by a
disparity between what one want in a job and what the job offers. Furthermore, the theory
affirms that how much one appreciates a disposed fact of work (for example, the degree of
autonomy in a position) mitigates how much the people are/ are not satisfied with respect
their expectations. When an individual evaluate a specific aspect of a job, his satisfaction is
more considerably resulted both positive (when expectation are met) and negatively (when
expectations are not met), correlated to one who does not evaluate that aspect. To exemplify,
if Employee A evaluate autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is impartial about
autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in position that provides a degree of
autonomy and less satisfied in a position with less of no autonomy in contrast to Employee B.
This theory also affirms that too much a worker evaluates on specific aspect, will result strong
feelings of dissatisfaction.

2.3 Relationship between Work Motivation and Job Satisfaction

2.3.1 Section of study
The transparency of the terms ‘satisfaction’ and ‘motivation’ can make it complex to
differentiate between them, leading in their equivalent usage in the literature (Addison &
Brundrett, 2008). Dinhan and Scott (2000) and Foster (2000) attribute this uncertainty to their
interconnectedness, while Lather and Jain (2005) state that the framework of work
motivation and job satisfaction sustain, strengthen and uphold each other. Employees who
derive satisfaction from their jobs are more likely to be motivated.
Mukherjee (2005) establishes an interesting relationship between work motivation and job
satisfaction as linked to inner emotional state. Hence, they cannot be perceived, but can only
be presumed from employees’ behaviour. Motivation relates to the expectations and
attitudes of an individual of how his or her desires can be satisfied by the outcomes he
acquires at work, while satisfaction refers to the evaluation of workers of how his
expectations and requirements are attained.
Various theories have sustained this link between motivation and job satisfaction. An example
is: Mertler (2002) established a direct relationship between a rise in the motivation levels and
higher satisfaction, while Karsli & Iskender (2009) evaluated their study on 400 teachers in
Turkey and the result led to those who were highly motivated were more satisfied compared
to their co-workers who had a lower motivation level. The greater the motivation and
responsibility related to their job, the more satisfied teachers will be (Sargent & Hannum,
2005). Lastly, according to Ahmed, Nawaz, Iqbal, Ali, Shaukat, & Usman (2010), there are
some motivational elements which stimulate a major role in increasing job satisfaction.
A link between job satisfaction and motivation is also supported theoretically (Mullins, 2005).
Two-factor theory, for example, identifies a direct association between the two (Herzberg et
al., 1957), while in Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964), there is an indirect link between the
two concepts.
The relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction is also reinforced conceptually
(Mullins, 2005). Herzberg et al. (1957) two-factor theory determine a direct link between the
two, while in Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964), the two terms are not directly related to
each other.
However, as per the study of many researchers, it is presumed that satisfaction is not identical
to motivation and there is a huge distinction between them (Ganai & Ali, 2013; Thompson,
1996; Mullins, 2008). Job satisfaction is concerned with an attitude or an inner state, which
can be identified with a personal sentiment about achievement or benefits; either
quantitative or qualitative benefits, whereas motivation is an approach which may support
and allow for job satisfaction to exist.
Motivation is more complex than satisfaction, since it relies on personal requirements to
formulate biological and social needs (Garrett, 1999). However, satisfaction plays an
important role in terms of diminishing the starting and essential needs of individuals, which
can thus influence the development of new or higher order needs in motivation concept.
The present study presumes motivation and job satisfaction to be distinct but interconnected
theories. However, job satisfaction remains the prime issue throughout.
 2.4 Conceptual Framework
Conceptual Framework

QN Determinants Independent Dependent Determinants QN

Variable Variable

2,3, Intrinsic Job Social

4 Motivation 20,21
Motivation Satisfaction Service

5,6, Integrated Moral 22,23,

7 Regulation values 24,25

8,9, Identified Activity 26,27

10 Regulation

Introjected Creativity 28,29,

11,12 30,31
Regulation

Advancement
13,14, External 32,33
15 Regulation

Compensation 34
16,17, Amotivation
18

Institution 35,36
Policies

Recognition
37,38

Figure: Conceptual framework of the study

This section represents the conceptual framework derived from this current research. The
diagram above illustrates UDM teaching staffs’ work motivation and job satisfaction which
comprises of four dimensions, influenced by various determinants and variables. These
elements were found from the questionnaire, whereby many have been identified from the
literature and adopted to the current study.
The three facets of the framework include motivation factors, satisfaction factors and the
questions related to these determinants. The second dimension comprises six factors:
intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation,
external regulation and amotivation. Job satisfaction includes eight determinants, for
example, compensation which is linked to the salary of employees in relation to the amount
of work being done within the organization. The first and last dimension relate to questions
that identify themselves directly with their corresponding determinants. The arrows in Figure
show demographically important interconnections between work motivation and job
satisfaction, between work motivation and its determinants, between job satisfaction and its
determinants, between work motivation and its related questions and between job
satisfaction and its equivalent questions. The framework analyses the personality of the
teaching staffs in UDM and its education system as well.
 Chapter 4: Data Analysis
Once the data is processed and completed, a statistical analysis is performed inorder to infer
some properties of the population from the results of the sample. Thus the purpose of
statistics is to summarise and answer questions about the behavioural variability that was
obtained in the research. Statistical analyses involve both descriptive and inferential statistics.
The level of statistical significance for null hypothesis testing was set at 5% level, with all
statistical test results being computed at the two-tailed level of significance in accordance
with the non-directional hypotheses presented.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

4.1.1 Gender (Mean and Std deviation)

Frequency = 18.This implies that we have 18 participants. Out of these 18 participants, 3

were female and 15 were male. The sample comprised of 17% (n=3) female respondents,
while male comprised of 83% (n=15) of the sample.

Figure 4.1 provides a depiction of the gender distribution of the sample.

From figure 4.1.1, it can be observed that the majority shaded area in green was male
participants and the yellow shaded area comprises of the number of female participants.

Figure 4.1.1 Gender of Respondents

4.1.2 Age

Frequency = 18.This implies that we have 18 participants. Out of these 18 participants, the
age of 2 participants lies between 41-45 and 36-40, the age of the 6 participants range
between 46-50 and the age of majority of participants is above 50.

The above figure illustrates the different ages of the sample of 18 participants. 11%
respondents have an age between 41-45 and 36-40, 33% participants’ age lie between 46-50
and 44% respondents have an age above 50.

4.1.3 How long have you been employed in this post?

The frequency column gives an indication about how many participants are employed on
their job depending on the number of years given as option. Also, the percentage of
employees employed based on the number of years can be calculated. For example, it can
be observed that 2 participants are employed on their job for less than 1 year.
A percentage can be calculated from this information whereby 2/18 *100 gives 11% which
means that 11% of participants has an age of less than 1 year.

The bar chart shows that 2 participants have an age less than 1 year, 4 have an age between
1-3 years, 1 has an age between 4-6 and 7-9 years, 3 have an age between 10-14 years and
7 respondents have an age of 15 years or more.

4.1.4 What are your academic qualifications?

Out of a sample size of 18 participants, the majority are the one who has a Master degree
Doctor of Philosophy, whereby n=16. Only 1 participant has a Degree with education
preparation and a Degree without education preparation.

4.1.5 Which type of incentives motivates you more?

It can be observed that the 17 participants are motivated by both financial and non-financial
incentives and 1 participant is motivated by non-financial incentives. In other way, it can be
said that the sample comprised of 6% of participants who based their motivation level only
on non-financial incentives and the rest 94% relied on both types of incentives when it comes
to what motivates them more.
4.1.6 Management is really interested in motivating the employees?
In a sample size of 18 respondents, the majority of participants agree that the management
at UDM is really interested in motivating the employees. 3 participants are neutral about this
which means that they neither agree nor disagree with this statement and only 1 respondent
disagree that the management is not really interested in motivating the employees.

The above information can be represented in a bar chart which reflects the statistics that has
been found according to whether or not the management is really interested in motivating
the employees, thereby classified under 3 categories: Agree, Neutral and Disagree.
 4.2 Inferential Statistics

4.2.1 Research Objective 1: To determine whether there is a relationship between

teaching staffs’ job satisfaction and motivation.

4.2.1.1 Normality test: Parametric Test

(a) Hypotheses:
H0: Motivation level follows a normal distribution.
H1: Motivation level does not follow a normal distribution.

(b) Test: Kolmogorov-Smirnov

(c) Statistics = 0.47

Significance value (p-value) = 0.980

(d) Conclusion:
We have to see whether the significance value is greater or less than 5%. If computed value
is more than 5%, we should accept H0. However, if the p-value is less than 5%, we should
reject H0.
Since significance value is greater than 0.05, we have to accept H0 and conclude that the
variable does follow a normal distribution.
4.2.1.2 Calculation of Mean
We have to calculate the mean as our data is normally distributed.

N = 18. In our survey there was 18 participants and all 18 participants have answered the
questions.
Missing = 0. There was no participants who had left any questions unanswered.
Minimum = 2.21. The value is close to 2, which means that the level of motivation among
academic staffs corresponds moderately with their job.
Mean = 2.71. When the value is rounded off, it can be said that it is close to 3. Since it is nearer
to 3, it means that in terms of motivation level, the academic staffs’ level of motivation
corresponds exactly, that is it can be inferred to as they are motivated to a high extent by
their work.

4.2.2 Research Objective 2: To determine the level of job satisfaction among teaching staffs
in UDM.
4.2.2.1 Normality test: Parametric Test

(a) Hypotheses:
H0: Satisfaction level follows a normal distribution.
H1: Satisfaction level does not follow a normal distribution.
(b) Test: Kolmogorov-Smirnov

(c) Statistics = 1.19

Significance value (p-value) = 0.100

(d) Conclusion:
We have to see whether the significance value is greater or less than 5%. If computed value
is more than 5%, we should accept H0. However, if the p-value is less than 5%, we should
reject H0.
Since significance value is greater than 0.05, we have to accept H0 and conclude that the
variable does follow a normal distribution.

4.2.2.2 Normally Distributed –Calculate Mean

The mean value has to be computed as our data is normally distributed.

N = 18. In our survey there was 18 participants and all 18 participants have answered the
questions.
Missing = 0. There was no participants who had left any questions unanswered.
Minimum = 3.05. The value is close to 3, which means that the academic staffs are very
satisfied with their job at UDM.
Mean = 3.50. When the value is rounded off, it can be said that it is close to 3. Since it is nearer
to 3, it means that in relation to employees’ satisfaction, the academic staffs are very satisfied
with their job.
4.2.3 Research Objective 3: To determine whether there is a relationship between
teaching staffs’ motivation and job satisfaction level.

4.2.3.1 Bivariate Correlation

Perform a correlation test between motivation index and satisfaction index

Comment
(a) Hypothesis
H0: There is no relationship between teaching staffs’ motivation and satisfaction level.
H1: There is a relationship between teaching staffs’ motivation and satisfaction level.
(b) Direction:
There is a positive relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction level
experienced by the academic staffs at UDM, from doing their job.
(c) Magnitude:
There is a weak relationship between motivation and satisfaction level that the academic
staffs experience at UDM.
(d) Significance:
There is a non-significant relationship between the work motivation and job satisfaction
level among the staffs at UDM.
(e) Overall:
There is a positive, weak and non-significant relationship between work motivation and job
satisfaction level at UDM.
4.3.2.2 Regression Analysis
Perform a regression analysis with the motivation and satisfaction index
(a) Regression Hypothesis
H0: The level of work motivation does not have a statistically significant impact on job
satisfaction.
H1: The level of work motivation does have a statistically significant impact on job
satisfaction.

(b) R is the correlation and it measures how two variables move in relation to each other.
R-value = 0.36. It means that 36% of academic staffs’ satisfaction on this job are explained
by the motivation level at UDM.
(c) R square or the coefficient of determination is the proportion on variability in Y that is
explained by the independent variable, which is the X variable.
This is the proportion of variance in the dependent variable (the job satisfaction level on this
job) which can be explained by the independent variable (the motivation level). This is an
overall measure of the strength of association and does not reflect the extent to which any
particular independent variable is associated with the dependent variable.
R Square = 0.13. It means that 13% of satisfaction on this job are explained by the
independent variable, that is the motivation level of the staffs at UDM.
(d) Adjusted R Square = 0.07. This means that 7% of staffs’ satisfaction are explained by the
motivation level from this job.
(e) Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.15. It implies that 15% of employees’ satisfaction are
explained by other variables than the independent variable, that is, the work motivation
level.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that this is not a good model because the majority of the staffs’
satisfaction are not explained by this model but rather defined by other variables.
Coefficient

(a) Constant and MOT_INDEX

If we go with to write the equation for the line: y = mx + b, that uses motivation level to
predict the amount of job satisfaction derived among staffs, we are going to look at the
unstandardized coefficients.
The value 0.18 is the slope for the level of motivation of staffs at UDM. The number 3.01, that
is in the constant line, is the Y-intercept which means that the equation of the line for using
the motivation variable that they do to predict the level of job satisfaction would be y = 0.18X
+ 3.01.
(b) Std. Error = 0.12. Based on the Std. Error value we are going to calculate the t-value,
which is 0.18/0.12 which gives t-value as 1.53.
(c) t and Sig. – These are the t-statistics and their associated 2-tailed p-values used in testing
whether a given coefficient is significantly different from zero. Using a sample size of 18, we
test the significance of the t-value which is 0.146. This is highly significantly different from
zero so we conclude that this is a significant predictor for the status.

ANOVA

The ANOVA table lets us know if our model is a significant model.

(a) Sum of Squares are essentially used to calculate more of F-test and t-test.
(b) df – The second column is the degrees of freedom which affects the t-test, F-test and
adjusted R squares. It takes into account your sample size and adjust the normal distribution
with lower sample.
(c) Mean Square – These are the Mean Squares, the Sum of Squares divided by their
respective DF.
(d) F and Sig. – F test is used to determine if the regression analysis is significant. This is the F-
statistic the p-value associated with it. The significance value takes into account the F value
and it is the probability that the results occurred randomly. The F-statistic is the Mean Square
(Regression) divided by the Mean Square (Residual): 0.06/0.023 = 2.33.
Conclusion: If sig. (p-value) is less than alpha (0.05), we say that the model is significant and
vice-versa. In this case, our significance value is 0.146 which is greater than 0.05. Therefore,
we accept our null hypothesis and this states that the level of work motivation does not have
a statistically significant impact on job satisfaction. We can conclude that the model is not
significant.