MOTIVATION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATION

By Khadim Jan 1

Muhammad I. Ramay 2
&
Tahir Masood Qureshi 3

1. Khadim Jan
PhD Scholar
Faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences
Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad

2. Muhammad I Ramay
Associate Professor
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences
Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad

3. Tahir Masood Qureshi

Faculty Member/ PhD Scholar
Faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences
Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad
Motivation in Public Organisations
______________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Motivation is known as important as other factors for achieving the organisation goals.
The high motivation led the employees to the extreme commitment with the organisation
goals. Similarly high employee motivation leads to greater employee creativity and
productivity, in this research paper it has been found that the two independent variables,
which are quality supervision and participation, are positively related to the dependent
variable, motivation. The participation has a strong relationship level than the quality
supervision with motivation. Results highlighted that all the tested variables are
positively correlated but correlation of participation (0.52), quality of supervision (0.30)
are respectively.

Key Words: (Quality of supervision, Participation, Motivation, Public sector).

Introduction
Motivation is a force that drives people to do things. Employees are normally motivated
to achieve their needs, whatever they may include. Motivation is inside another person's
head and heart. It may be intrinsic or extrinsic. This is what we call motivation.
Employees of a company will be motivated if they associate certain incentives with an
activity of work.

It has been seen in Pakistan that the employees in the public sector organisations are not
motivated as much as in the private sector. There are so many factors responsible for this
state of nature. In this research the focus is that what are the factors responsible for
motivation and its impacts on the organisation goals. There are different types of public
organisation but for this research study the insurance companies that are owned by the
Government have been selected. The research here will be pertains to the insurance
industry but it can also be extended to other public sector organisations.

In this research the impact of the two independent variables will be seen on the
motivation. Quality supervision is an aspect of immediate work environment, with
significant implications for motivation (Parry & Porter, 1982). Similarly the National
Center for Productivity (1978) reported employee perceptions of lower supervisory
quality in the public than in the private sector. Parry and Porter (1982) also proved that in
any event, quality of supervision is a critical element in motivational process.
Participation involves some type of shared or joint decision making between supervisors
and subordinates at the work group, program, or organisational level (Parry and Porter,
1982). They have further stated that one might expect that participation would contribute
positively to motivational considerations like perception. Donald in his research paper,
The Role of Organisations in Fostering Public Service Motivation, has stated that the
empowering of the employees has a positive effect on PSM.
Literature review
A challenging work environment and support of the top management is a very high
motivator (Horwitz et al, 2003). Similarly having regular contacts with the senior
executives is another factor for motivation (Horwitz et al, 2003). It was also proved by
Horwitz et al (2003) that flexible work practices such as flexi-time does not guarantee the
motivation. The ineffective practices may be potential dissatifiers and may not motivate
intrinsically (Harzberg, 1966). A highly competitive pay package, with performance
incentives, seemed to be more important for attracting the employees than motivation
(Horwitz et al, 2003). Higher employee motivation leads to greater employee creativity,
productivity and discretionary effort which inturn lead to improved company
performance (Gevity Institute, motivating your employees). In the same small business
guide it has been mentioned that businesses have the power to directly impact employee
motivation through their employee management practices. Collective bargaining is one
variant of participation (Porter and miles, 1974). It has been further stated by Porter and
Miles, 1974 that participation would contribute positively to motivation.

Frederick Herzberg’s motivation theory also states that satisfaction of the employees is
associated with the non-monetary, or intrinsic factors like achievement, recognition,
personal growth and the characteristics of the work. The intrinsic factors motivate the
employee. Similarly the dissatisfying or the extrinsic factors like company policies,
salary, co-worker relations, supervisor relationship and job security etc. feels the
employee dissatisfied and less motivated. In the same management guide it has been
clearly mentioned that the perceived inequality has been shown to lead to low motivation.
It has also been pointed in the guide that by investing the time will provide opportunities
to employee motivation.

Porter and miles (1974) proved that the motivation energises, directs and sustains
behaviour. They also identified four factor/variables namely individual characteristics,
job characteristics, work environment and the external environment. If motivation is to be
affected, one or more of these variables must be changed or affected.
According to Guyot (1961), government middle managers had higher needs for
achievement and lower needs for affiliation than did their business counter parts, but their
needs for power may roughly the same.

Rawls et al (1975) have found that standards about to enter government sector were
significantly more dominated and flexible. They had higher capacity for status and
economic wealth. (Paine, Carol & leete, 1966), (Rhinehart, Bamel, Dewalfe, Griffin &
Spancer, 1969), (Rainey, 1979a, 1979b) indicate that public managers experience
significantly lower levels of satisfaction and motivation than do their counterparts in the
business.

The quality supervision is an important factor for motivation. The national centre for
productivity (1978) reported employees’ perception of lower supervisory quality in the
public that in the private sector. The primary motivators for public sector employees are
the interests that attract them to public service (James L. Perry 1999). The organisational
service learning has a significant positive effect on employee motivation (Hays and Hill
1999). According to Donald P. Moynihan in his research paper, The Role of
Organisations in Fostering Public Service Motivation, that PSM is strongly and positively
related to the level of education. Higher pay and package is less important for public
service managers (Rainy 1982). Donald also proved that the hierarchical levels in an
organisation would affect employee levels of PSM. Similarly the length of service with
the organisation also affects the PSM. Donald also proved another thing that men have
higher level of PSM than women.

Employees can be committed to the organisation itself due to an emotional attachment or

because of the benefits associated with the organisation (Wright and Pandey 2005).
Public Service Motivation (PSM) may represent a value based commitment to work,
(Wright and Pandey, 2005). A relationship exists between employee motives and sector
employment (Bradley E. Wright 2001). Work motivation is just one factor that influences
performance (Bradley E. Wright 2001). Sector differences in performance rewards,
procedural constraints, and goal content may influence work motivation directly (Bradley
E. Wright 2001).

The observed behaviour in the public organisations can be understood only if citizens and
policy makers are motivated by altruistic considerations (John King et al, 1992).
Most of the managers in the public sector are motivated by productivity and service
enhancement (John King et al, 1992). It has been further proved by John King et al, 1992,
that lack of significance of variables such as organisational role and context suggests that
motivations are not determine purely or even primarily by environmental factors. They
are instead the result of more complex interactions among the environment, experience
and personality.

Rationale
James r. Perry and Lyman W. Porter have researched on the factors affecting the context
for the motivation in the public organisation. In this research, the employees of the
insurance company that was a public sector company were surveyed. The impact of the
two independent variables on the dependent variable that is motivation was seen.

Research question
What is the impact of Quality Supervision and Participation on Motivation?

Hypotheses

Hypotheses 1: Quality supervision is positively related to the Public Service

Motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982).

Hypotheses 2: Participation is also significantly related to the public Service

motivation (PSM).
Theoretical frame work

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

H1
Quality Supervision

Motivation
H2
Participation

Research Methodology

Sample:
About one hundred and fifty (150) questionnaires were sent to the employees of the
insurance company that is owned by the government. These employees were included the
officers from Assistant General Managers to Executive Officers (the starting grade). Only
one hundred and twenty six (126) questionnaires were received back duly filled and
completed.

Questionnaire:
For this purpose a questionnaire was designed I which all the items were scored on a five
point Likert Scale with end points of “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”. Before this the
James L. Perry and Lyman W. Porter has conducted the research. They have considered
more independent variables and its impact on the motivation. But in this research only
two of the independent variables were considered in the Pakistani environment in a
public sector insurance company.

Subject:
The employees of the govt. insurance company based in Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi,
Abbottabad and Peshawar were surveyed.

Procedure
The two independent variables have been measured after collection of data. The impact
of each independent variable has been seen separately on the dependent veriable, which is
motivation. It has been proved that each independent variable has positive impact on the
dependent variable. The positive relation was also found between the independent
variable. As we have to establish the relationship between independent variables and
dependant variable so we used the Pearson correlation to find the relation of the
independent variables with the dependent variable.
Results

Characteristics of Target Population

Although State Life has employed thousands of employees but the survey has been
restricted to the officers of the five centers only. A total of 150 officers were asked to
complete the survey questionnaires in these centers. Out of these 124 officers responded
making the response rate 83%. Keeping in view the limited number of officers in these
centers the sample is sufficient for analysis of various results.

Conclusion
On the basis of the data collected it has been proved that participation is positively related
to the motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982). Similarly quality supervision is also positively
related to motivation (Parry and Porter, 1982). Donald in his research paper has also
concluded the same results that the empowering of the employees has a positive effect on
public service motivation. Horwitz et al, 2003 has also proved the same results the
support of the top management is very high motivator. Porter and Miles, 1974 has also
proved that participation would contribute positively to motivation.
The next variable participation and the data collected and analysed proved that it has also
positively related to the motivation. The quality supervision is an important factor for
motivation (National Centre for Productivity, 1978). Similarly Parry and Porter, 1982 has
concluded that quality supervision has a significant implication for motivation. Hays and
Hill, 1999 has also proved that organizational learning has a significant positive effect on
employee motivation.

Findings
In the above correlation table it has been established that participation has a relation level
of .52 and the quality supervision has .30 with the motivation. It means that participation
is more strongly related to motivation in the public service motivation than quality
supervision.
My findings are consistent with the above stated researchers in spite of the fact that we
have conducted our research in the Pakistani environment. Because we have found on the
basis of our data a positive relationship of independent variables (Quality Supervision
and Participation) with the dependent variable (Motivation). Parry and Porter and other
researchers have found the same results in their research. It has also been proved that
hypotheses one is true because quality supervision is positively related to motivation. In
contrast to the hypotheses one, hypotheses two has also been proved to be corrected in
the sense that participation is more positively related to motivation than quality
supervision. The two independent variables are also positively related with each other. So
in the light of the data it has been proved and we can say with confidence that
participation and quality supervision are both positively related to the motivation and it
was the findings of most of the previous researchers.

Direction for Future Research

Future research can be conducted in the areas like extending this one research to
achieving organizational goals. Motivation levels of both male and females can be seen
separately. Motivation level of the employees with regard to their qualification can also
be seen.

References:

Hyde, S.J; & Kling, C.K. (2001). Women, Motivation, And Achievement.: University of
Wisconsin. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25 (2001).
Perry, L.J. (1999). Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation:
Indiana University. 471/ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Motivating Your Employees (A Small Business Guide) Gevity Institute. 2005. GNGIN
151 9-05 Gevity HR, Inc.
Perry, L. J; & Porter, W. L. (1982). Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in
Public Organizations.: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. No. 1
(Jan;1982), 89-98
Horwitz, M. F. & Heng, T.C. & Quazi, A.H. (2003). Finders, Keepers? Attracting,
motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol 13 No 4, 2003, Pages 23-44
Hays, M. J. & Hill, V.A. (1999). Gaining Competitive Service Value through
Performance Motivation. Curtis L. Carlson School of Management University of
Minnesota.
Moynihan, P. D. & Pandey, K. S. The Role Organizations in Fostering Public Service
Motivation. Forthcoming in Public Administration Review. Bush School Working
Paper-505
Perry, L. J. & Kraemer, L. K. & Dunkle, D. & King, J. (1992). University of California.
Motivation To Innovate In Public Organizations. Working paper-URB-026
Wright, E. B. & Pandey, K. S. (2005). University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Department of Political Science. Exploring the Nomological Map of Public
Service Motivation Concept.
Wright, E. B. (2001). University at Albany-Sunny. Public-Sector Work Motivation: A
Review of the Current Literature and a Revised Conceptual Model. 559/Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory. J-PART 11(2001):4:559-
Kim, J. (2006). University of Michigan School of Information. Motivating and Impeding
Factors Affecting Faculty Contribution to Institutional Responsibilities.
Houston, J. D. (2005). University of Tennessee. “Walking the Walk” of Public Service
Motivation: Public Employees and Charitable Gifts of Time, Blood, and Money.
The Effects of Motivation on Performance. Copy right. (2004), essays.cc
 A SURVEY ON
MOTIVATION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

Dear Respondent!
I am a student of Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad. I am conducting a research on
Motivation in public organizations , under the supervision of Prof. M. I. Ramay. Your responses are
strictly confidential. In no way will your name or your answers be revealed out. This questionnaire,
which I am completing for my Motivation at Work, is designed to ascertain how you are motivated and
whether you motivate the people around you. I apologize for using your valuable time and hope that
you will enjoy the questionnaire. (Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible)
There are no right or wrong answers. Your response will reflect your own perception of how you
motivate or can motivate others at work. Do not spend too much time on a statement; generally your
first reaction is the most accurate.
Please answer all the questions as best as you can. Thank you for your kind cooperation, support and
contribution towards this research.
If you need findings of this research please send a request to ramay@jinnah.edu.pk

Age Gender Highest Level of Education Job

0 20-30 0 31-40 0 Male 0 Bachelors 0 MS/M.Phil
0
0 41-50 0 51+ Ad
0 Female 0 Masters 0 Ph.D
min
/
Tec
Income Level Years with this Organization Years in this
sector/Industry
0 20,000-30,000 0 31,000-40,000 0 Less than year 0 6-10 yrs.
0 41,000-50,000 0 51,000+ 0 1-5 yrs. 0 10 or above 0 Less than year
0 6-10 yrs.
0 1-5 yrs. 0 10 or
above

Quality Supervision

5=Strongly
1 = Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3=Indifferent 4=Agree
Agree

1 My immediate supervisor is reasonable. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Provides regular feedback about my performance. 1 2 3 4 5
3 Acknowledge when I have performed well. 1 2 3 4 5
4 Allows me freedom to use my initiative in performing my job. 1 2 3 4 5
5 Encourages my input in to decisions. 1 2 3 4 5
6 Encourages and supports my career development. 1 2 3 4 5
7 My supervisor takes a flexible approach to issues arising 1 2 3 4 5
between work and family.
8 My supervisor communicates effectively. 1 2 3 4 5
9 My supervisor encourages suggestions for improvements. 1 2 3 4 5
Participation

5=Strongly
1 = Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3=Indifferent 4=Agree
Agree

1 I enjoy working on moderately difficult (challenging) tasks and 1 2 3 4 5

goals.
2 I relate very well to people. 1 2 3 4 5
3 I am afraid of making mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5
4 I involve my people in defining their roles and procedure of 1 2 3 4 5
working.
5 I develop teamwork among the people who work for me. 1 2 3 4 5
6 I am uneasy and less productive when work alone. 1 2 3 4 5
7 I like to solicit ideas from others. 1 2 3 4 5
8 I like to accept responsibility in the group’s work. 1 2 3 4 5

Motivation

5=Strongly
1 = Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3=Indifferent 4=Agree
Agree

1 I have high goals and expectations for myself. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I am confident in my ability. 1 2 3 4 5
3 I am eager to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5
4 I put forth the necessary effort to reach a goal. 1 2 3 4 5
5 I believe I can always improve. 1 2 3 4 5
6 I seek solutions to complex problems. 1 2 3 4 5
7 I take action on causes I believe in. 1 2 3 4 5
8 I make sacrifices today to benefit my future. 1 2 3 4 5
9 I accept responsibility for my actions. 1 2 3 4 5
10 I am optimistic about the future. 1 2 3 4 5

(Thank you very much for filling out this questionnaire, your help is
appreciated. This questionnaire will help me to analyze how motivated the
office is and how each person feels about the business.)
ANNEXURE: 1

Different characteristics of target population are as under:

Table: 1 Frequency: Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 109 88%
Female 15 12%
Total 124 100%

Table: 2 Frequency: Age

Age Frequency Percentage
20-30 11 9%
31-40 61 49%
41-50 27 22%
51 & Over 25 20%
Total 124 100%

Table: 3 Frequency: Qualification

Qualification Frequency Percentage
Bachelors 73 59%
Masters 45 36%
MS/M.Phil 4 3%
Ph.D 2 2%
Total 124 100%

Table: 4 Frequency: Job

Job Title Frequency Percentage
Admin. 69 56%
Tech. 55 44%
Total 124 100%

Table: 5 Frequency: Income

Income (In 000) Frequency Percentage
20-30 79 64%
31-40 32 36%
41-50 8 6%
51 & Over 5 4%
Total 124 100%

Table: 6 Frequency: Experience

Years Frequency Percentage
Less Then 1 Year 0 0%
1-5 13 10.48%
6-10 24 19.35%
More Then 10 Years 7 70.16%
Total 124 100%
ANNEXURE: 2

Table 7-
Correlations

QS Part. Mot.
QS 1
Part. 0.32 1

Mot. 0.31 0.52 1

Table99- Descriptive Statistics

QS Part Mot
Mean 3.8136 3.7893 4.1782
Standard Error 0.0655 0.0447 0.0537
Median 4.0000 3.7500 4.2000
Standard
Deviation 0.7294 0.4973 0.5975
Range 3.1111 2.1250 3.2000
Minimum 1.8889 2.7500 1.8000
Maximum 5.0000 4.8750 5.0000
Sum 472.8889 469.8750 518.1000
Count 124.0000 124.0000 124.0000
Confidence
Level (95.0%) 0.1297 0.0884 0.1062

Correlations

QS Part. Mot.
QS Pearson
1 .037 .136
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) . .687 .133
N 124 124 124
Part. Pearson
.037 1 .126
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .687 . .163
N 124 124 124
Mot. Pearson
.136 .126 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .133 .163 .
N 124 124 124
 ANNEXURE: 3

Regression
Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Mot. 3.90 1.139 124
QS 3.85 1.057 124
Part. 4.19 .703 124

Correlations

Mot. QS Part.
Pearson Mot. 1.000 .136 .126
Correlation QS .136 1.000 .037
Part. .126 .037 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Mot. . .066 .082
QS .066 . .343
Part. .082 .343 .
N Mot. 124 124 124
QS 124 124 124
Part. 124 124 124

Variables Entered/Removed (b)

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Part., QS(a) . Enter
a All requested variables entered.
b Dependent Variable: Mot.

Model Summary (b)

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square df
Change F Change 1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .182
.033 .017 1.129 .033 2.073 2 121
(a)
a Predictors: (Constant), Part., QS
b Dependent Variable: Mot.
ANNEXURE: 4
ANOVA (b)

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regressio
5.288 2 2.644 2.073 .130(a)
n
Residual 154.349 121 1.276
Total 159.637 123
a Predictors: (Constant), Part., QS
b Dependent Variable: Mot.

Coefficients (a)

Mod Unstandardized Standardized

el Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for B
Std. Upper
B Error Beta Lower Bound Bound
1 (Consta 3.57
2.527 .707 .001 1.126 3.927
nt) 2
QS 1.46
.142 .096 .131 .144 -.049 .333
9
a Dependent Variable: Mot.

Coefficient Correlations (a)

Model Part. QS
1 Correlati Part. 1.000 -.037
ons QS -.037 1.000
Covarian Part. .021 -.001
ces QS -.001 .009
a Dependent Variable: Mot.

Residuals Statistics (a)

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value 3.20 4.22 3.90 .207 124
Residual -3.076 1.797 .000 1.120 124
Std. Predicted Value -3.339 1.554 .000 1.000 124
Std. Residual -2.723 1.591 .000 .992 124
a Dependent Variable: Mot.
ANNEXURE: 5

Histogram

Dependent Variable: Mot.

25

20
Frequency

15

10

Mean = 2.91E-17
Std. Dev. = 0.992
0 N = 124
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Regression Standardized Residual
ANNEXURE: 6

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

Dependent Variable: Mot.

1.0

0.8
Expected Cum Prob

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob