Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MOTIVATION
throug
h
Compensation and Working
Environment
in
Pharma Industry of Pakistan
Submitted
to:
Submitted
by:
CONTENTS
Abstract. 3
Literature Review .4
Research Methodology 8
Statistical Data . 9
Findings 14
Conclusion 16
Guidance for Further Research 17
Reference .... 18
Questionnaire 20
ABSTRACT
In any organization employee motivation is the key factor for organizational
performance. Previous studies have shown positive impact of Working
Environment and Compensation on employees motivation. In this study a
sample of 100 Pharma Employees was taken by adopting non probability
convenient sampling, to investigate the relationship between Motivation &
Working Environment and Employee Motivation. Pharma Employees found
not highly motivated as a result of working environment and compensation.
Result showed there is a highly positive relationship of independent
variable over dependent variable.
Page 3 of 23
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
A literature review is a clear and logical presentation of the relevant
research work done before in the same area of investigation.
Over and over again studies (Bacon et al, 1996; Deshpande and Golhar,
1994 and Julien, 1998) have emphasized that employees are key to
maintaining a competitive edge by a business. To be successful in a global
market, a firm needs a highly motivated, skilled and satisfied workforce
that can produce quality goods at low costs (Wagar, 1998).
RESEARCHERS VIEW
Page 4 of 23
Page 5 of 23
IVEnvironment
Working
Page 6 of 23
Page 7 of 23
Research Methodology
Objectives / Aims of the research study
It was an attempt to determine the impact of Working Environment and
Compensation on employee motivation. The main objectives were:
To investigate the impact of Working Environment and
Compensation on employees motivation.
To investigate the relationship between Independent variables
(Working Environment & Compensation) with dependent variable
(employees motivation).
To recognize the degree of association between Independent
variables and dependent variables.
Instrument:
Primary data was collected thorough questionnaires. This questionnaire
was initially developed by us by consulting a number of research
papers.
Sample:
Total 100 questionnaires were got duly filled by the employees of the
different Pharmas in Pakistan.
Questionnaire:
For this purpose a questionnaire was designed and items were scored on a
five point Likert Scale with end points of Disagree and Strongly
Disagree.
Procedure:
Two of the independent and one of the dependent variable relationships
was tried to found. As we have to establish the relationship between
independent variables and dependant variable so we used the correlation to
find the relation of the independent variables with the dependent variable.
To check the impact of independent variables over the dependent variable
we used regression analysis.
Page 8 of 23
STATISTICAL DATA
Gender
Age
Education
Male
74%
Female
26%
Above 20 years
21-30 years
53%
31-40 years
28%
41-50 years
11%
Above 50 years
5%
Ph.D
1%
Master Degree
60%
Bechlore Degree
31%
Intermediat
8%
Others
Income (monthly)
Work Experience
S. No.
Demographics
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.8
2
3
2.2
2.6
1.8
2.6
2.4
1.4
2.6
1.8
1.8
2
1.8
2
2
2.2
1.8
Rs.10,000-Rs.20,000
28%
Rs.21,000-Rs.30,000
38%
Rs.31,000-Rs.40,000
11%
Rs.41,000-Rs.50,000
17%
Above 50,000
6%
5%
6 month to 1 year
32%
1 to 2 years
22%
3 to 5 years
23%
18%
Working Environment
IV 1
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.4
1.9
2.4
1.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.3
1.8
1.6
2.1
Compensation
IV2
2.25
2.125
3.375
3.375
3
3.375
2.625
3
2.25
3.5
3.125
3.25
2.875
3.125
2.875
2.375
2.5
3.25
2.625
3
1.75
3
Motivation
DV
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Page 9 of 23
1.8
1.4
2.4
3.4
3.8
3
1.8
2.4
2.4
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.3
3.0
2.2
2.6
2.5
3
4.25
2.125
2.375
2.125
2.25
3
1.75
3.5
2.625
2.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.50
3.00
2.00
Page 10 of 23
2.2
2.4
1.8
2.6
2.8
2.8
2
2
2.2
3
2.2
3.4
1.8
2.6
3.2
2.2
3.8
2.4
3
3.4
3.2
3.4
2.8
3.2
3
3
1.6
2.6
2.4
2
1.6
1.8
3.2
2.2
2.6
2.6
3.4
1.8
2.4
2.2
3
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.8
3.8
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.2
1.8
2.3
2.0
1.6
2.4
2.5
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.1
2.7
3.2
1.3
3.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.375
2.25
3.625
2
4.5
2.375
2.125
2.375
2.5
1.625
3.25
2.5
3.75
3
3.25
3.875
2.25
2.75
2.5
2.125
2.25
2.875
2
2.25
3
2.125
1.75
1.875
1.75
3
2.625
2.5
3.875
3.5
3.625
3.5
1.75
3.75
1.25
2.875
3.375
2.00
2.50
3.00
1.50
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
3.00
2.50
2.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
3.00
2.50
2.50
2.00
1.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
4.00
1.50
3.00
1.50
2.00
3.50
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
3.2
2.6
2.2
3.8
2
2.4
2.8
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.5
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.3
1.6
1.8
2.1
1.625
2.875
3.5
1.5
2
2.25
2.625
1.75
1.75
1.375
1.625
1.25
2.50
1.50
2.50
1.50
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
3.00
Page 11 of 23
4
2.6
3
3
2.8
3.4
3.6
2.8
2
2.4
2.4
2.4
3
2.8
2.5
1.9
1.7
2.3
1.9
2.5
1.6
2.1
2.3
2.3
1.8
2.4
1.7
2.2
2.875
2
1.75
1.75
1
4.5
1.25
2
3.25
1.75
2.5
2.875
2.375
3.125
3.00
1.50
1.00
3.50
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.50
Page 12 of 23
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Sample Variance
Minimum
Maximum
Working
Environment
2.256666667
2.2
2.0
0.5
0.3
1.3
4.3
Compensation
Motivation
2.784166667
2.6
2.3
1.0
0.9
1.0
5.0
2.436666667
2.5
2.0
0.7
0.5
1.0
5.0
X = 1.11 + 0.48Z
Page 13 of 23
Page 14 of 23
FINDINGS
Descriptive results revealed positive trend of variables i.e. Working
Environment & Motivation and Compensation and Motivation. Likert
scale helped to explain the feelings of pharma officers towards
Compensation, Working Environment and motivation.
The aggregate mean of 1st independent variable (Working Environment) is
calculated as (2.26), median (2.2), mode (2) with (0.50) standard deviation
and (0.30) sample variance, which shows that the people working in
pharma industry of Pakistan feel that there is need to update the
working environment of the pharma. They are of a view that working
environment in pharma industry of Pakistan has some flaws in it which
needs to be removed. In nutshell, Pharma employees are not found
highly satisfied and motivated with their current working environment
of the pharma industry in Pakistan.
The aggregate mean of 2nd independent variable (Compensation) is
calculated as (2.78), median (2.6), mode (2.3) with (1.0) standard deviation
and (0.90) sample variance. This again reveals that most of the people are
not satisfied with the fully satisfied with their compensation structure. The
pharma employees feel that they are not paid according to the services
they are giving to pharma. They are not getting the true fruit of their
hard work. There is a need to update the compensation structure
according to the services provided by employees.
Aggregate mean of dependent variable (motivation) is found as (2.44),
median (2.5), mode (2.0) with (0.7) standard deviation and (0.5) sample
variance. We find with the help of this analysis that the motivation level of
Pharma employees is not very high. They are somehow dissatisfied or
not motivated in terms of working environment and compensation.
Co Relational Analysis
Correlation b/w Motivation Correlation b/w Motivation
and Working Environment
and Compensation
0.646238187
0.530625915
According to the research we found that there is a high positive correlation
between Motivation and Working Environment as well as Motivation and
Compensation.
Page 15 of 23
Regression Results
The regression line expresses the best prediction of the dependent variable
(X, Motivation), on the independent variables (Y, Working
Environment) and (Z, Compensation). The regression lines equations for
these variables are as follows:
Regression Lines b/w
Motivation (X) and Working
Environment (Y)
X = 0.30 + 0.95Y
Page 16 of 23
CONCLUSION
Motivation is linked with good working environment and high level of
compensation.
The organization should must understand that what type of work
environment can motivate their employees and they can become loyal
employees of the organization which benefit the organization in the long
run. Moreover the organizations should develop such a compensation
structure that fulfill the needs of the employees in a best possible way and
that they dont look around to meet their needs.
Page 17 of 23
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge many helpful comments on this
research.
Page 18 of 23
REFERENCES
1. Amabile, T. M. 1996, creativity in context, 2nd ed, Boulder, co, West view press.
2. Beer, M. and Walton, E. R. 1990 Reward Systems and the Role of
Compensation Manage People, Not Personnel: Motivation and performance
Appraisal. A Harvard Business Review Book, Chapter 2, pp.15-30.
3. Bohlander, G., Snell, S. and Sherman A., 2001, Managing Human Resources.
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing
4. Carolyn Petersen, 2000, Value of Complementary Care Rises, But Poses
Challenges, Managed Healthcare.
5. Colvin, G. (1998). What money makes you do? Fortune 138 (4), 213-214.
6. David A. Decenzo and Stephen P. Robbins. 2002, Human Resource
Management, 7th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
7. D. M. Cable & T. A. Judge, 1994, Pay Preferences and Job Search Decisions: A
Person-Organization Fit Perspective, Personal Psychology 47, pp.317-48.
8. E. E. Lawler, 1971, Pay & Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological
View, New York, McGrew-Hill, Inc.
9. Emmert, M. and Tamer W. A., 1992. Public Sector Professionals: The effect of
Public Sector Job on Motivation, Satisfaction and Work involvement. American
Review of Public Administration, Vol. 22, pp.37-48.
10. Evans M. G., 1986. Organizational behavior: The central role of motivation.
Journal of Management.
11. F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, B. Snyderman.1959, The motivation to work. New
York, Johnwiely.
12. Green Berg J, 2001. Organizational Justice as Probation and reactions:
Implications for research `and application. In Cropanzano R (ed.), Justice in
work place: form theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 271-302).
13. Gerhart B. (ed.), compensation in organization: Current Research and Practice,
pp. 32-60. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Gibbons R., 1997, incentives and careers in organizations. In advances in
Economic theory and Econometrics, Vol. II, Kreps D. and Wallis K, ed.
Cambridge University press, U.K.
15. Herzberg. F. 1968, One more time: How do you motivate employees?
Harward business review, Vol. 46, ISS. 1, pp, 53-62
16. IRS Employment Review, 1996, Selecting team rewards. London , Internet
17. Jerald, G. and Robert, A. B., 1997. Behavior in Organizations: Understanding
and Managing the Human Side of Work, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
18. Kovach, K., 1987. What Motivates Employees? Workers and Supervisors Give
Different Answers. Business Horizons.
19. Martin, J. and Hanson, S., 1985. Sex, family wage earning status and
satisfaction with work and occupations, 12, 91-109.
20. Milkovich & Newman, 2002. Compensation, 7th ed, The McGrew-Hill
Companies, Inc.
21. R. T. Kaufman, 1992, The Effects of Improshare on Productivity,
Industrial and Labour Relations Review 45, pp. 311-22.
22. R. Heneman and T. Judge, 1999, Compensation Attitudes: A Review and
Recommendations for Future Research, in Compensation in Organization:
Progress and Prospects, S.L. Rynes and B. Gerhart, eds. New Lexington Press,
San Francisco.
23. Steers, R. and Black, J. 1994,Organization Behavior, 5th ed, Harper Collins.
Page 19 of 23
Page 20 of 23
Questionnaire
This research is confidential. No responder will be disclosed individually. We request
that you provide your honest views, avoiding overly positive and overly negative
feedback.
DEMOGRAPHICS
1.
Gender
Male
2.
Female
Age
a) Above 20
b) 21 30
c) 31 40
d) 41 50
3.
e) Above 50
Education Level
a) PhD
b) Post Graduate Level
c) Graduate Level
d) Intermediate Level
e) Other
4.
(Name of Organizarion)
6.
Page 21 of 23
WORK ENVIRONMENT
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Page 22 of 23
17
18
COMPENSATION
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MOTIVATION
27
28
Strongly Agree
Agree
Good
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Average
Neutral
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Poor
Very Poor
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Page 23 of 23