PLAN for ARBS summative:

Q: To explore how employees’ intrinsic motivation can be improved

in the private sector

Abstract: 150

Focus- is how group work can improve the intrinsic motivation of employees.
There has been previous research surrounding psychological aspects of motivation in addition
to motivation within organisations.
Research shows that employees in the private sector lack in intrinsic motivating
characteristics, unlike those in the public sector. I focus my research on the intrinsic
characteristics stated by Buelens et al (2007): ‘job content, self-development, recognition,
autonomy’.

I then created four hypotheses surrounding whether group work would increase these four
factors of intrinsic motivation.

I analysed my results using correlations and t-tests. These showed that my only statistically
significant hypothesis was that the self-development of employees increased when group
motivation increased.

I concluded that

Introduction- 600

The research question asks if group work participation can improve the intrinsic motivation
of employees.

Independent variable- group participation

Dependent variable- level of intrinsic motivation

Interest surrounds this topic as ‘intrinsic motivation has emerged as an important

phenomenon for educators’ as ‘intrinsic motivation results in high-quality learning and
creativity’. (Ryan et al 2000).
Moreover, employees in the public sector are more intrinsically motivated than those in the
private sector. We know that ‘Public sector employees are more motivated by job content,
self-development, recognition, autonomy’ (Buelens et al, 2007). This is further highlighted
through public service motivation (PSM): ‘a general altruistic motivation to serve the
interests of a community of people. (Andersen et al 2011). PSM is ‘significant to
organisations’ and ‘most PSM research has been confined to the public sector’. (Taylor,
2010).

PSM was found higher in public sector than private sector in relation to ‘public policy
making’ and ‘public interest’. (Bangcheng et al, 2012).

Additionally, the LMX questionnaire shows that the key difference the private sector is
lacking in is intrinsic motivation.
Although we can understand importance of extrinsic motivation. For example ‘both intrinsic
and extrinsic factors’ of ‘curriculum’ and ‘working conditions’ were ‘important to teacher
satisfaction’. (Breci, 2002). We can understand that these are achieved more easily in private
organisations as they are not affected by PSM. (Andersen et al, 2011). Thus, improving
intrinsic motivations of private employees will result in a more effective learning
environment. This will improve the results of the private organisations as well as the job
satisfactions of the employees.

There has been research on motivation within organisations.

Research surrounding financial motivation finds that ‘the pay for performance treatment had
no substantial impact’ and ‘implies that lack of motivation was likely not a key hindrance’.
Employees in the study were ‘faced by other barriers’. (Carpena et al, 2015). Moreover, we
know that ‘although teachers care about their salaries and fringe benefits’, they are ‘more
motivated by intrinsic rewards’ than ‘by extrinsic rewards such as job security, salaries and
fringe benefits’. (Breci, 2002).

Furthermore, there is research into ‘behavioural constraints’ effecting motivation, which

individuals ‘may face’, even with the ‘motivation to learn’ and with ‘adequate tools’. Thus,
‘goal setting’ can ‘overcome behavioral barriers such as procrastination and forgetfulness’
which ‘can result in increased impact.’ However, there are limitations surrounding ‘more
difficult behavioural changes’ (Carpena et al, 2015).

Moreover, the ‘Hackman and Oldham Job Characteristic Model’ is ‘one of the most
influential attempts to design jobs with increased motivational properties’. The intrinsic
motivating factor ‘autonomy’ is a ‘core dimension’ in increasing employee’s ‘motivational
potential.’ (Sisodia et al, 2013).

There has been extensive research surrounding motivation in social sciences.

Psychological factors are shown to have a large impact on motivation. A widely-used theory
is Maslow’s motivation theory of hierarchical needs. This ‘includes five basic levels of needs,
which should be satisfied consecutively’. The ‘self-actualisation’ level highlights the drive
individuals need to be intrinsically motivated to develop and achieve. (Maslow, 1970).

Moreover, Alderfer’s ‘ERG theory’ critiques Maslow’s theory. It is ‘job-specific’ in nature,

for example focusing on ‘relatedness needs from co-workers and superiors and growth need
satisfaction at work.’ This exemplifies the intrinsic motivation for employees to gain
recognition to achieve a greater job satisfaction. (Arnolds, 2002). –look up

Overall, more research needs to go into the improvement of intrinsic motivation in private
companies. The lack of employee’s intrinsic motivation is a key factor in the lower
motivation of private companies. Hence, exploring how to improve it will be integral to both
employees and organisations of the private sector.

The influence of group work on the intrinsic motivation of employees in the private sector
has yet to be explored. Group work is shown to effectively improve motivation. It stimulates
‘collective efficacy’ which is the ‘normal mode’ in which work should be completed. It
creates a ‘shift in work motivation theorizing away from individual needs, toward a new
paradigm more responsive to culture.’ This ‘collective’ work culture creates an identity for
employees as people can ‘derive meaning from being linked to social collectives through
their identities’ (Lewis, 2011).

We can understand that ‘group affirmation’ is shown to ‘enhance social identity’, this in turn
induces high performance motivation. However, ‘group affirmation’ is shown to be more
effective among ‘highly identified group members’. ‘Low identifiers’ were more effectively
motivated through ‘self-affirmation’. (Derks et al, 2009).

Additionally, through group work, employees work together and ‘set goals’ and targets.
These behavioural factors are shown to be important to motivation. (Carpena et al, 2015).

Overall, in this study we will learn whether through using group work we will improve the
intrinsic motivation of employees in the private sector.

Background- 750
Focus- is how group work can improve the intrinsic motivation of employees.

Group behaviour is ‘defined in terms of the attraction members feel towards each other and
the group as a whole.’ (Ullah, 1987). A psychological group is defined as ‘any number of
people who (1) interact with one another (2) are psychologically aware of one another, and
(3) perceive themselves to be a group’. (Schein, 1988).

Motivation is derived from the Latin word ‘to move’, hence a person must be ‘moved’ to
complete a task. (Araimi, 2013).

Intrinsic motivation ‘refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or

enjoyable’. It can be defined as ‘the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather
than for some separable consequence.’ Whereas extrinsic motivation ‘refers to doing
something because it leads to a separable outcome’. The two motivations thus contrast with
each other as intrinsic motivation ‘refers to doing an activity simply for the enjoyment of the
activity itself, rather than its instrumental value.’ (Ryan et al, 2000).

My overall hypothesis is that group motivation is significantly and positively related to an

employee’s increased intrinsic motivation. Based on the literature above I have developed
four hypotheses.

H1: Increased group work is significantly and positively related to employee’s increased
motivation due to their increased interest in their job content.

‘Job content’ is a factor that contributes to an individual’s intrinsic motivation. (Buelens et al,
2007). Research shows that ‘the intrinsic factors of work, or how people feel about the job
tasks, have been found to be important in producing job satisfaction’ (Breci 2002).

Stimulating job content will allow people to achieve ‘personal growth’ and achieve their full
potential. This is highlighted through the ‘self-actualisation’ level in Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs. (McLeod, 2007).
We can understand that differences in job content influence motivation as ‘there is no
difference in the level of PSM between the public and private employees when the tasks
performed are taken into account’. (Andersen et al, 2011).

For example, ‘people working in public organizations were motivated more by factors such
as providing a service or product that helps other people’. (Cacioppe et al, 1984).

By working in a group, the variety and intensity of work will change due to the ‘collective’
culture. This will provide a more stimulating working environment. (Lewis, 2011).

H2: Increased group work is significantly and positively related to employee’s increased
motivation due to their improved self-development.

‘Self-development’ is again a contributing factor to intrinsic motivation. (Buelens et al,

2007). It is again highlighted through Maslow’s ‘self-fulfilment’ needs in the ‘self-
actualisation’ level of the hierarchy. (McLeod, 2007). We can understand that ‘people with
positive core self-evaluations viewed their lives and jobs in a better light because their
internal make up enabled them to do so’ (Breci, 2002).

This is important to improve as employees working in the public sector have a higher ‘self-
development than private sector employees’. (Cacioppe and Mock 1984).

Only a minority of studies report findings that public-sector employees show weaker internal
work motivation than their private sector counterparts (Aryee 1992).

Through working in a group and feeding off ideas with colleagues, employees will become
more motivated to develop, feeding off the ‘collective’ environment. (Lewis, 2011).

H3: Increased group work is significantly and positively related to employee’s increased
motivation due to increased recognition by managers.

We can understand the importance of the intrinsic motivation ‘recognition’ for employees
(Buelens et al, 2007). We know that ‘leadership is a multi-faceted construct involving aspects
of the leader, the follower, and the dyadic relationship between the two’. (Graen et al, 1995).
Hence it is important that a positive relationship is cultivated.

Moreover, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs highlights the importance of the ‘psychological

needs’ of ‘esteem’ and ‘belongingness’. (McLeod, 2007).

Group work creates a ‘social identity’ which will increase employee’s recognition as part of
a collective. (Derks et al, 2009).

H4: Increased group work is significantly and positively related to employee’s motivation
due to employee’s increased job autonomy

‘Autonomy’ is an intrinsic motivation characteristic. (Buelens et al, 2007). The Job

Characteristic Model highlights the importance of autonomy. It ‘describes the amount of
individual choice and discretion involved in a job.’ Thus, ‘more autonomy leads to more
satisfaction.’ (Sisodia et al, 2013).
This is successful as ‘autonomous employees are free to choose how to do their jobs and
therefore can be more effective.’ (Sisodia et al, 2013).

‘Autonomy’ is shown to be ‘key in building teacher morale’. (Breci, 2002). Applying

Maslow’s theories, we can see that autonomy leads to high job satisfaction as ‘self-
actualisation’ needs have been fulfilled. (McLeod, 2007).

Group work is autonomous as it provides a ‘collective’ culture; this is a ‘normal’ mode of

working allowing people to work freely and assign roles within the group. (Lewis, 2011).

Methodology 450

-how informed by previous research? Saw that intrinsic motivations were not compared to
group work. If my results showed that group work improves intrinsic motivations then
employees in the private sector will be more motivated.

In this exploratory study, data was collected from employees working in organisation X in
the private sector. An offline questionnaire was designed with 13 items to collect primary
data to ensure employees worked for the private organisation. The organisation is based in
England, so the questionnaires were administered in English to ensure that meaning was not
lost. I used quantitative data to analyse my results I used this approach as it effectively
showed relationships across variables of intrinsic motivation and group participation in a
large sample size.

Group participation of employees was used as the dependent variable. It was measured by
whether employees participated in group work in their role or not. This was measured by a
dummy variable where 1= No and 2= Yes.

The study has four independent variables related to intrinsic levels of motivation. These were
job content, self-development, recognition and autonomy. (Buelens et al 2007). These
variables were used to predict the motivation of employees. Figure 1 illustrates the research
framework.

The first independent variable was the job content of the employees. It was measured using 2
questionnaire items adopted from Coelho et al (2011). The Cronbach’s Alpha of employees
in groups relationship with job content was 0.670. The second independent variable was self-
development of employees. It was measured using 2 questionnaire items adopted from
Coelho et al (2011). The Cronbach’s Alpha of employees in groups relationship with self-
development was 0.657. The third independent variable was the recognition employees have-
relationship with supervisor. It was measured using 3 questionnaire items adopted from
Coelho et al (2011). The Cronbach’s Alpha of employees in groups relationship with their
supervisor was 0.718. The fourth independent variable was the job autonomy of employees.
It was measured using 2 questionnaire items adopted from Coelho et al (2011) The
Cronbach’s Alpha of job autonomy scale was 0.758.
 Figure 1 Research Framework

Job content
Age
Self-development H1
Gender
H2
Motivation
H3 through group
Recognition participation
Education level

H4

Job Autonomy

Several items were created as control variables to show differences in the sample. The first
variable was the age of the employees. This variable was measured by a categorical scale
where 1 = 18-30, 2 =31-44, 3 = 45-60 and 4 = 60+. The second variable was gender of
employees; this was measured by a dummy variable where 1= Male and 2 = Female. The
third variable was education level of employees. This variable was measured by a categorical
scale where 1= less than diploma level, 2 = Diploma level, 3 = Bachelor level and 4 = Master
level.

The sample of this study was selected from organisation X a private company in England. To
test the hypothesis of this study, 100 employees from the organisation participated. 56% of
the participants were male employees and 44% of the participants were female employees.
Furthermore, the analysis showed that the average age of the sample was between 18-30
years. Moreover, the participants had different education levels; 93% of the participants had
bachelor degrees and 7% had master degrees.

Before methodology for the experiment was undertaken, potential ethical issues were
considered. For example, I ensured that all information surrounding the organisation and
participants was kept confidential, so names remained anonymous. Additionally, all
participants signed a consent form before they provided information. A set of completed
ethical approval forms were signed by the Module Leader before any empirical work was
undertaken.

Analysis and Research: 450

-normality check?

The correlations in Table 1 illustrate some findings. Firstly, there was a small, positive
correlation between group work participation and motivation to job content. (r = .04, n=
100). P is below the significance level of 0.05, we reject H1. Hence, when group work
participation increases, employees will not have increased interest towards their job content.
 There was a medium positive correlation between group work participation and self-
development. (r=.43, p<.01, n=100). We can accept H2 as the results are significant. Hence,
when group work participation increases, employee’s self-development increases.

There was a small positive correlation between group work participation and recognition. (r=
.06, n=100). P is below the significance level of 0.05, we reject H3. Hence, when group
work participation increases, employee’s recognition does not increase.

There was a small negative correlation between group work participation and job autonomy.
(r= -.03, n=100). P is below the significance level of 0.05, we reject H4. Hence, when group
work participation increases, employees job autonomy does not increase.

Table 1. Correlations among variables

Mean S. D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Gender 1.44 0.50
2 Age 1.94 0.85 -.03
3 Education 3.07 0.26 .07 .02
Group work
4 participation 1.51 0.50 .06 .10 -.20*

5 Job Content 3.05 0.88 .24* .00 .28** .04

Self-
6 development 1.95 0.74 .05 .11 .05 .43** -.01
7 Recognition 2.26 0.62 .17 .20* .06 .06 -.11 -.07
8 Autonomy 3.34 0.81 .05 .14 .18 -.03 .10 .14 .08

Note, N=100, * p<.05; **p<.01

Table 2. Results of t-tests and Descriptive Statistics Job content, Self-development,

Recognition and Autonomy

Outcome Group 95% CI for

Mean Eta
Group work No group work
Difference squared
M SD n M SD n t df
Job content 3.09 .88 51 3.01 .89 49 -.43, .27 -.44 98 .002
Self-
development 2.25 .71 51 1.62 .63 49 -.90, .37 -4.7* 98 .018
Recognition 2.29 .61 51 2.22 .63 49 -.32, .17 -.62 98 .004
Autonomy 3.31 .79 51 3.37 .84 49 -.27, .38 .33 98 .001

Note, * p < .05.

My results are normally distributed so I ran a parametric t test. Table 2 shows that there are
statistically significant differences, at the .05 level of significance, between employees who
do or do not take part in group work, in their self-development, but not with motivation in job
content, recognition or autonomy. Results show that employees who took part in group work
had higher self-development scores. Yet, no statistical difference exists between employees
who do or do not take part in group work in terms of motivation to job content, recognition or
autonomy.

The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean differences = .63, 95% CI: -.90 to
.37) was very large for employee’s self-development (eta squared = .018). Yet it was
very small for motivation in job content, recognition or autonomy. (Cohen, 1988).

Discussion: 300

Overall, the results from the correlations and t-tests show that group participation only has a
statistically significant effect on the self-development of employees in private organisations.
The variables of job content, recognition and autonomy has no statistically significant effect.

-compare to literature
-interesting findings?
-implications- theoretical and practical

H1 is rejected as there is no statistically significant effect between motivation to job content

and group participation.

We can understand this is because group participation does not change the job content itself.

Moreover, job content can be shown to not influence motivation as ‘there is no difference in
the level of PSM between the public and private employees when the tasks performed are
taken into account’. (Andersen et al, 2011).

In practice, private companies should look to increase the variety and intensity of group work
to increase employee’s fulfilment and interest towards their job content.

H2 is accepted as there is a statistically significant effect between self-development and

group participation.

This is interesting as the individual’s self-development is not necessarily improved through

group focused products, and I would expect more individual requirements such as autonomy
to be filled. Instead, ‘group affirmation’ enhances the ‘social identity’. (Derks et al, 2009).
This in turn induces high performance motivation for the group, who are motivated to
improve and develop as a ‘collective’. Moreover, it ‘induces challenge’ between group
members. (Lewis, 2011). This implicates private companies in practice, to increase group
projects for employees they want to challenge and improve, for example to be promoted in
the company.
Yet we can understand that group work fulfils the psychological need of ‘belonging’ on
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. (McLeod, 2007). This in turn allows the higher need of ‘self-
actualisation’ to be filled which surrounds individuals achieving their potential.

H3 is rejected as there is no statistically significant effect between increased recognition and

group participation.

This is not surprising as individuals are being recognised as a ‘collective’ group with the
same identity. (Lewis, 2011). Hence they are not receiving the same recognition as they
would if they were working as individuals.

Yet, there could be increased recognition with colleagues, which I could have measured
through my questionnaire.

In practice, managers should look to meet with employees and give evaluations on a more
regular basis to increase the recognition employees receive. Maslow highlights the
importance of ‘recognition’ and ‘belonging’ in his hierarchy. (McLeod, 2007).

H4 is rejected as there is no statistically significant effect between increased autonomy and

group participation.

This result surprises me as group works ‘collective’ culture provides a ‘normal’ mode of
working which allows individuals more freedom and flexibility within the roles and
responsibility they want to take on within the group.

Instead, managers should look to again change the job roles of employees, to give them more
freedom and challenges. This will increase their motivation and willingness to work.

Overall, there are both strengths and limitations within my study.

There are limitations which I could change and improve on. Firstly, I could further increase
the sample size to increase the reliability of my results and reduce the effect of anomalies.
However, my scales showed reliability with two scales above .70 Cronbach’s Alpha. My
other two scales were very high at .06. They could be increased with a larger sample size.

Moreover, I used the Likert scale in my questionnaire; this is a subjective tool of analysis,
increasing the propensity for unreliable results. For example, the measurement of how much
group work employees took part in was subjective. One person’s opinion of same level of
group work could be v different. I could change my experiment to ask the amount of group
work employees took part in in a period.

The cross-sectional design of the study was quick and easy to conduct. Moreover, the data
only needed to be collected once. It additionally allowed me to measure factors from several
variables and generate descriptive analyses. Explore?

Gender and group work participation had a strong positive relationship. I would focus on this
impact when doing this study again. Look at the different impacts men and women have in
groups.
Yet I could have increased the number of controls I used. The job content of employees was
not kept the same. We can understand that this effects our results as ‘there is no difference in
the level of PSM between the public and private employees when the tasks performed are
taken into account.’ (Andersen et al, 2011). Therefore, I should collect information from
employees with the same task content to increase the accuracy of my results.

Finally, I should have looked at employees from a variety of organisations to increase the
accuracy. In different organisations there would be larger differences in the amount of group
work employees took part in, increasing the accuracy of my experiment.

Conclusion: 300

My only statistically significant result is that self-development of employees increases when

group work increases.

References:

Andersen, L, Pallesen, T, and Pedersen, L. 2011. Does Ownership Matter? Public Service
Motivation Among Physiotherapists in the Private and Public Sectors in Denmark. Review of
Public Personnel Administration. [Online]. 31(1) 10–27. [Accessed 17th April 2018].
Available from:
http://journals.sagepub.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0734371X10394402

Araimi, A. 2013. Exploratory study on employees’ motivation in the omani private banking
sector. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. [Online]. 16(2), pp.208-
220. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-16-02-2013-
B003

Appollonia, A, Sun, H, Jia, F, and Li, X. 2014. Green Procurement in the private sector: a
state of the art review between 1996 and 2013. Journal of Cleaner Production. [Online]. 85,
pp. 122-133. [Accessed 15th April 2018]. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-
com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0959652614009317?via%3Dihub

Arnolds, C.A, and Boshoff, C. 2002. Compensation, esteem valence and job performance: an
empirical assessment of Alderfer's ERG theory. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management. [Online].13(4), pp.697-719. [Accessed 15th April 2018]. Available
from:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=8db31a
51-31c6-4a5e-b535-b711ba21bde6%40pdc-v-sessmgr01

Bangcheng, L, Lanying, D, Hao, W, and Bo, F. 2012. Public service motivation of public-
versus Private-sector employees in a Chinese context. Social Behavior and Personality: an
international journal. 40(9), pp.1409(10).

Bajwa, S, Virdi, S, Bajwa, Ghai, G, Singh, K, Rana, C, Singh, J.P, Raj, S, and Puril, A. In
depth analysis of motivational factors at work in the health industry. Industrial Psychiatry
Journal. [Online]. 19(1), pp. 20-29. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105554/

Buelens, M. and, Van den Broeck, H. 2007. An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation
between Public and Private Sector Organizations. Public Administration Review. [Online].
January/February 2007. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2f8a/46c75ba8baabc36a34bee9b2cc8272c3a028.pdf

Breci, J. 2002. Job satisfaction, personality, work content and motivation of school
psychologists: Intrinsic and extrinsic factors. University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Cacioppe, R, and Mock, P. 1984. A Comparison of the Quality of Work Experience in

Government and Private Organizations. Human Relations. [Online]. 37(11), pp.923-240.
[Accessed 17th April 2018]. Available from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001872678403701104

Carpena, F, Cole, S, Shapiro, J, and Zia, B. 2015. ABCs of Financial Education:

Experimental Evidence on Attitudes, Behavior, and Cognitive Biases. Policy Research
Working Paper. [Online]. September 2015. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from:
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2819
Castiglione, D, Lovasi, G, and Carvalho, M. 2017. Perceptions and Uses of Public and
Private Health Care in a Brazilian Favela. Qualitative Health Research. [Online]. 28(1),
pp.159-172. [Accessed 15th April 2018]. Available from:
http://journals.sagepub.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/doi/10.1177/1049732317739611

Coelho, F, Augusto, M, and Lages, L. 2011. Contextual Factors and the Creativity of
Frontline Employees: The Mediating Effects of Role Stress and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal
of Retailing. [Online]. 87(1), pp.31-45. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from:
https://www-sciencedirect-
com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0022435910000941?via%3Dihub

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Derks, B, van Laar, C, and Ellemers, N. 2009. Working for the self or working for the group:
How self- versus group affirmation affects collective behavior in low-status groups. Journal
Of Personality And Social Psychology. [Online]. 96(1), pp.183-202. [Accessed 17th April
2018]. Available from:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=282b7859-2a12-
41d0-81d0-
8bd683624f98%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=200
8-18683-010&db=pdh

Graen, G, and Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership:

Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years:
Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Management Department Faculty
Publications. [Online]. 57. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from:
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=managementfacp
ub

Humphrey, C, and Russell, J. Motivation and values of hospital consultants in south-east

England who work in the national health service and do private practice. Social Science &
Medicine. [Online]. 59(6), pp. 1241-1250. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from:
https://www-sciencedirect-
com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S027795360300707X?via%3Dihub

Lewis, T. 2011. Assessing social identity and collective efficacy as theories of group
motivation at work. International Journal of Human Resource Management. [Online]. 22(4),
pp.963-980. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=6083b7ca-34c9-
4bf2-9ccd-
5045fc8f894d%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=595
30561&db=bth

Lyons, S, Duxbury, L and Higgins, C. 2006. A Comparison of the Values and Commitment
of Private Sector, Public Sector, and Parapublic Sector Employees. Public Administration
Review. [Online]. 66(4), pp. 605-618. [Accessed 17th April 2018]. Available from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3843945

Maslow, A. 1970. Motivation and personality. 2nd edition. New York; London: Harper &
Row.

Mcleod, S.A. 2007. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. [Online]. [Accessed
17th April 2018]. Available from:
http://highgatecounselling.org.uk/members/certificate/CT2%20Paper%201.pdf
Ng, E, Gossett, C, Chinyoka, S, and Obasi, I. 2016. Public vs private sector employment: An
exploratory study of career choice among graduate management students in Botswana.
Personnel Review, 45 (6), pp.1367-1385, https://doi-org.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/10.1108/PR-10-
2014-0241

Pallant, J. 2016. SPSS Survival Manual. 6th edition. Berkshire: Open University Press

Ryan, R, and Deci, E. 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New
Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. [Online]. 25(1), pp. 54-67. [Accessed
17th April 2018]. Available from:
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0361476X99910202/1-s2.0-S0361476X99910202-
main.pdf?_tid=54ba0089-e6ec-4690-8781-
c275f51b1511&acdnat=1523203379_6e85f9f9a0d33af06496d6201da6dc5a

Satyawadi, R, and Ghosh, P. 2012. Motivation and work values in Indian public and private
sector enterprises: a comparative study. International Jurnal of Human Resources
Development and Management. [Online]. 12(3). [Accessed 17th April 2018]. Available from:
https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJHRDM.2012.048628

Schein, B. 1988. Organisational Psychology. 3rd edition. United states: Prentice hall
international.

Sinha, S, Singh, A, Gupta, N, and Dutt, R. 2010. Impact of work culture on motivation and
performance level of employees in private sector companies. Journal of Central and Eastern
European Economic and Management Issues. [Online]. [Accessed 15th April 2018].
Available from: https://www.vse.cz/aop/321

^
different cultures effect employees and their morale

Sisodia, S, and Das, I. Effect of Job Autonomy Upon Organizational Commitment

of Employees at Different Hierarchical Level. Psychological Thought. [Online]. 6(2),
pp.241–251. [Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from: doi:10.5964/psyct.v6i2.65.

Srivastava, S. 1984.Achievement Motivation in Private and Public Sector Employees: A

Comparative Study. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. [Online]. 19(4), pp. 502-506.
[Accessed 16th April 2018]. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27770639

Taylor, J. 2010. Public service motivation, civic attitudes and actions of public, nonprofit and
private sector employees. Public Administration. [Online]. 88(4), pp. 1083-1098. [Accessed
16th April 2018]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-
com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01870.x

Ullah, P.1987. Self‐definition and psychological group formation in an ethnic minority.

British Journal of Social Psychology. [Online]. 26(1), pp. 17-23. [Accessed 17th April 2018].
Available from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00757.x

Zotkina1, N, Bardasov, S, Gusarova, M and Kopytova, A. 2016. Integral indicator for

evaluating system of material motivation employees of state and private enterprises in the
construction sector. MATEC Web of Conferences 106, 08050. [Online]. [Accessed 17th April
2018]. Available from:
https://www.matecconferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2017/20/matecconf_spbw2017_08
050.pdf

Appendices:

Questionnaire:

1. What is your gender?

1.Male 2. Female 3. Prefer not to say

2. What is your age grouping?

1.(18-30) 2. (31-44) 3. (45-60) 4. 60+

‘intrinsic factors… were significant predictors of job satisfaction of older workers’.

(Breci, 2002).

3. Circle your education level:

1.less than diploma 2. diploma level 3. bachelor level 4. masters level

4. Do you take part in group work in your role?

1.no 2. yes

JOB CONTENT:

5. Does group work increase your motivation to your job content?

1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree

6. Does group work increase your interest towards you’re the interest and variety
of your job content?

1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree

SELF-DEVELOPMENT:
7. Do you feel that working in groups has improved the skills and qualities you
bring to your role?
 1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree

8. Do you find that group work increases your ability to set aims and realise your
goals?

1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5.
strongly disagree

RECOGNITION:

9. Does group work increase your manger/ supervisor’s understanding to your job
problems and needs
1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree

10. Do you feel managers recognise your potential more give you more support in
group work?

1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree

11. Does your relationship with your manager improve when you participate in
group work?

1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree

AUTONOMY:

12. Do you feel that group work improves your say in decisions and the
responsibility you have within the organisation?

1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree

13. Do you feel that group work improves your independence and freedom over
your job role?

1.Strongly agree 2. somewhat agree 3. neither agree nor disagree 4. somewhat disagree 5. strongly
disagree
^Effect of Job Autonomy Upon Organizational Commitment of Employees at Different Hierarchical Level
Shalini Sisodia ; Ira Das