thesisherzberg

Randy O'Brien Page 1 9/1/2003

Effective Motivational Factors for Thai

Employees

Randy O’Brien1

Randy O’Brien is a lecturer in the Faculty of Business Administration at Asian University of Science and Technology. He can be reached by one of the following: Tel: +6696867305 or +15065323961; Fax +15065339145; Email: randy_obrien@canada.com; Mail: 26 Bordeaux Street, Shediac, NB, Canada, E4P1J3.

Randy O'Brien Page 2 9/1/2003

Effective Motivational Factors for Thai Employees

Abstract

Using Herzberg’s two-factor theory, the research demonstrates how two different sets of

factors define employees’ attitudes. Factors that led to job satisfaction were: enjoying the job,

relationship with peers, being successful, relationship with boss, and working conditions.

Factors that led to job dissatisfaction were: boredom, relationship with peers, relationship

with boss, repetitive work, and working conditions. While at first glance Herzberg’s

segregation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors may not seem applicable in Thailand, the

aggregated results prove the two-factor theory’s validity.

More information on the author can be obtained by visiting www.randyobrien.com. A copy of the full thesis is available in the library at the Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok.

Randy O'Brien Page 3 9/1/2003

INTRODUCTION

The idea of human relations is one that spurred interest nearly a century ago. Prior to World

War I, managers considered employees as a means to output. In those days, managers felt

employees were happy just to be employed and that was the end of their motivational efforts.

Managers were not concerned with morale; they were concerned with the bottom line,

profitability. What they didn’t realize though, is that morale was directly related to

productivity. By the mid 1930’s, the emergence of a formal human relations concept awaited

only a dramatic demonstration, an articulate champion, and a platform from which it could

command the attention of management (Gellerman 1978).

SO WHAT IS MOTIVATION ANYWAY?

Depending on the context, motivation can be defined in a number of ways. A simple

definition may be: “the act of giving somebody a reason or incentive to do something.”

Basing ourselves on such a simple definition, however, presents a number of problems.

Consider the following example: … I tell my employees that if they do not produce X

bushels of rice per hour, I will physically beat them…. Although the fear of being

physically attacked may give the employee a “reason to do something”, this would hardly be

considered motivation. Herzberg would call this creating a movement as opposed to

motivation. In this example, the employees would produce in fear of punishment but would

not be motivated and probably wouldn’t be too concerned on how prosperous the company

becomes.

Randy O'Brien Page 4 9/1/2003

Unfortunately, there is no one simple way of defining what motivates employees. Managers

must work on a case-by-case basis. Familiarizing themselves with motivational theories is the

first step in understanding the complexity of human relations.

Motivational Theories

Elton Mayo (1945) was the first widely accepted researcher in the field of human relations.

Through a series of experiments conducted in the mid 20’s to early 30’s which became

known at the Hawthorn Studies, Mayo proved that productivity could be increased though

motivation. His research focused on motivation through cooperation.

Since then, there have been many researchers who have built on this which now creates a

complex web of interlinked concepts and theories. The main theories that have had a

significant impact on our understanding of motivation are: Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs,

Herzberg’s two-factor theory, Vroom’s expectancy theory, and Adam’s equity theory.

Maslow (1970) developed the hierarchy of needs theory. Unlike Mayo’s purely extrinsic

focused motivation, Maslow said that within each human being there is a hierarchy of five

needs. Each lower level need must be satisfied before the next higher level will generate

motivation. The levels, in the order that they must be met are: physiological, safety, social,

esteem, and self-actualization.

Herzberg (1959) agreed with Maslow and developed the two-factor theory. His theory

suggests that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are two independent constructs, each

influenced by a different set of factors. He argues that factors that lead to job satisfaction are

the higher level needs from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs being social, esteem, and self-

Randy O'Brien Page 5 9/1/2003

actualization. The lower levels, physiological and safety are, when absent, the primary cause

of dissatisfaction.

Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory says an individual should be rewarded with what s/he

perceives as important rather than what the manager perceives as important. For example,

one individual may value a salary increase, whereas another may, instead, value promotion.

Vroom's theory is based on the belief that employee effort will lead to performance and

performance will lead to rewards. Rewards may be either positive or negative. The more

positive the reward the more likely the employee will be highly motivated. Conversely, the

more negative the reward the less likely the employee will be motivated. This theory

contributes an insight into the study of motivation by explaining how individual goals

influence individual performance.

Adams' (1963, 1965) equity theory states that employees strive for equity between

themselves and other workers. Equity is achieved when the ratio of employee outcomes over

inputs is equal to other employee outcomes over inputs.

Randy O'Brien Page 6 9/1/2003

ABOUT THE RESEARCH

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine what factors lead to job satisfaction and which

lead to job dissatisfaction for Thai employees. Therefore, the first hypothesis was factors that

lead to job satisfaction will be different from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Secondly,

the researcher set out to test Herzberg’s two-factor theory in Thailand and formulated the

second hypothesis as factors that lead to job satisfaction will be intrinsic factors while those

that lead to job dissatisfaction will be extrinsic factors.

Methodology

This study examined attitudes of Thai employees working in the banking sector of Bangkok.

One hundred ninety five questionnaires were delivered to several branches of various banks

along Rama 4, Silom, and Sathorn road in Bangkok. Of the 195 questionnaires delivered, 145

were returned for a response rate of 75%.

From a review of the literature, a questionnaire was developed to collect data for the study.

The questionnaires were hand delivered to branch managers who distributed them to their

staff. The questionnaires had three parts. The first part was open-ended questions asking

respondents to think of a time they were highly motivated at the workplace and list the

factors that contributed to their state of happiness. The same was asked for dissatisfaction.

The second part was a partial psychometric test evaluating Herzberg’s ten dimensions of job

satisfaction / dissatisfaction. Participants were asked to rank the importance of 15 statements

about motivation where 5 = most important … 1 = least important. The third part measured

selected demographics (see appendix).

Randy O'Brien Page 7 9/1/2003

Face and content validity for the instrument were established by pilot testing with two

administrative staff and two faculty members from the school of management at The Asian

Institute of Technology in Bangkok.

Some questionnaires were returned partially completed while others not at all. Some of the

responses were at obviously not genuine. Determining which questionnaires were genuine

presented a degree of subjectivity. Since this represented only a small number of the

respondents, the research has included all usable questionnaires.

Randy O'Brien Page 8 9/1/2003

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The top factors that led to job satisfaction were: (1) Enjoy the job, (2) Relationship with

Peers, (3) Being Successful; Relationship with Boss, (4) Working Conditions, (5) Having

Challenging Work; Being Encouraged. The top factors that led to job dissatisfaction were: (1)

Being Bored, (2) Relationships with Peers, (3) Relationship with Boss, (4) Doing Repetitive

Work, (5) Working Conditions.

At first glance, we would tend to reject both hypotheses on the grounds that factors that

satisfy and factors that dissatisfy are similar and do not present enough differences to support

hypothesis one. Further, both sets are a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic factors thus

rejecting hypothesis two. While this may be true ‘at first glance’, when the results are

aggregated, we find a more distinguished set of factors for each construct.

In fact, the aggregated results support both hypotheses. Consider the following graph which

displays the aggregated results of both job satisfaction factors (motivators) and job

dissatisfaction factors (hygiene).

Randy O'Brien Page 9 9/1/2003

65 43

5735

All factors contributing to All factors contributing to job dissatisfaction job satisfaction

100% 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100%

Source: O’Brien (2003), field survey

Figure 1: All Factors Leading to Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction for Employees

in Thailand

Hygiene

Motivators

Randy O'Brien Page 10 9/1/2003

Here we find that factors that lead to job satisfaction are primarily intrinsic factors while

those that lead to job dissatisfaction are primarily extrinsic factors. This further highlights

that factors contributing to satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not the same. Therefore, we

fail to reject both hypotheses.

In more recent applications of Herzberg’s two-factor theory, researchers have found that

when work conditions directly affect an employee’s ability to perform, Herzberg’s clear cut

distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic factors begins to break down (Lowther et al., 1982;

Nias, 1981). This is evident in Thai employees responding “relationships” as a leading factor

for both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Knowing poor relationships with colleagues and

supervisors will affect their ability to perform their work, the former extrinsic need becomes

instinct. Similarly, work conditions is intimately linked to an employee’s ability to address

intrinsic needs. Work conditions that normally would appeal to extrinsic needs are central

components of “the work itself” and therefore they appeal to intrinsic needs (Bacharach et al.,

1986; Kottkamp & Mulhern, 1987; Miskel, 1980).

Implications for Managers

Employees in Thailand place a great deal of importance on their relationships. In fact, this

lies at the heart of their collectivist national culture as described by Hofstede (1980).

Herzberg’s two-factor theory has some applicability in Thailand but most importantly,

managers must remember that:

• Relationships are the driving force behind employee motivation in Thailand; good

relationships will motivate employees while bad ones will lead to extreme

Randy O'Brien Page 11 9/1/2003

dissatisfaction. Open communication at all levels will enhance relationships

producing happier thus more motivated employees.

• The openness of markets is changing Thai attitudes towards their work and HRM

practices will need to change with them. For example, the traditional Asian seniority

based promotions will likely be replaced with the performance based promotion

practice1. Examples like this are important illustrations of why communication is so

important. Practitioners must constantly be aware of their employees’ attitudes.

Randy O'Brien Page 12 9/1/2003

NOTES TO TEXT

1- Several respondents referred to instances of unfairness, lack of recognition, and

reported comments such as “…the boss only promotes those who have been here a

long time.” This was interpreted as a desire for performance based promotion.

Randy O'Brien Page 13 9/1/2003

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1965), Inequity in Social Exchange. New York: Academic Press.

Adams, J. S. (1963), “Toward an Understanding of Inequity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67, 422-436.

Bacharach, S. B., Bauer, S., & Shedd, J. (1986), The Learning Workplace: The Conditions and Resources of Teaching. Ithaca: Organizational Analysis and Practice.

Gellerman, Saul W. (1978), Motivation and Productivity. New York: American Management Association.

Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Herzberg, Frederick (1968), “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees,” Harvard Business Review. January-February.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Kottkamp, R., and Mulhern, J. (1987), “Teacher Expectancy Motivation, Open to Closed Climate and Pupil Control Ideology in High Schools,” Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20(2), 9-18.

Lawler, John J.; Siengthai, Sununta; and Atmiyananadan, Vinita (1998), “HRM in Thailand: Eroding Traditions,” in Human Resource Management in the Asia Pacific Region: Convergence Questions, Chris Rowley ed. London: Frank Cass and Company Limited.

Lowther, M., Coppard, L., Gill, S., and Tank, R. (1982), “The Mid-Career Malaise of Teachers: An Examination of Job Attitudes and The Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction in The Middle Years,” Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.

Maslow, A. H. (1970), Motivation and Personality 2nd Ed. New York: Harper and Row.

Randy O'Brien Page 14 9/1/2003

Mayo, Elton (1945), The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston: Harvard Business School. Miskel, C. (1980), “A Test of Expectancy Work Motivation Theory in Education Organizations,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(1), 70-92.

Nias, J. (1981), “Teacher Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: Herzberg's ‘Two Factor’ Hypothesis Revisited,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2(3), 235-236.

O’Brien, Randy (2003), “Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory: A Case Study of the Banking Industry in Thailand,” Master’s Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology.

Vroom, Victor H. (1964), Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Randy O'Brien Page 15 9/1/2003

APPENDIX

Table 1: Summary of respondents’ background Characteristic

Number of Responses Relative Frequency

Sex

Male Female

76 64

55% 45%

Age

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55 and Over

14 26 39 25 11 11 63

10% 19% 29% 19% 8% 8% 4% 2%

Number of years with the Company

0 - 45 - 910-14 15-19 20-24 25 and Over

30 49 33 10 812

21% 34% 23% 7% 6% 9%

Education

High School Vocational School Technical School University Masters Other

064

111 15 1

-4.5% 3% 81%

11.5% -

Source: O’Brien (2003), field survey