MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
School of Management
University of Asia and the Pacific
A Comparative Study of the Level of Motivation of Employees
ages 25 years and below and above 25 years old
using the WEIMS measurement
The case of KMC MAG Group
A Management Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of
Management Research Seminar II – MGT 512
Submitted by:
Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson
Lota Kristine San Juan-Nable
Faculty-In-Charge
December 17, 2014
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people who have seen me through in executing my
thesis. First of all, to my family, who have supported me in every trial and difficulty I had to face
in writing this paper. To my mentors and teachers, Mrs. Kristine San Juan – Nable, Dr. Raymond
Pangilingan, Dr. Eric Parilla, Dr. Anna Maria Mendoza, and Dr. Venus Oliva Cloma who have
given me continual support and encouragement in many of my academic undertakings. To my
friends, who always encourages and supports me to see life with optimism. Most of all, To God,
who has taught me to overcome my shortcomings and enlightened me to persist in everything I
do.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
3
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the work motivation profiles of a real-estate services firm
in the Philippines. The chosen firm was the Taguig City-based KMC MAG Group which
currently employed 93 workers in seven departments. The Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic
Motivation Scale (WEIMS) was utilized to determine if the employees were Intrinsically or
Extrinsically motivated to work. This tool was designed to determine the work motivation types
of employees based on an 18-item questionnaire, which can detect the range of motivation
subtypes known to exist. This study also determined the subtypes in the WEIMS where the KMC
MAG employees belonged to. The main demographic profiles were analyzed against the work
motivation types to determine significance differences. Out of the 93 employees at KMC MAG
Group, 60.2% participated in the survey. The employees had high median scores for Work SelfDetermined Motivation (W-SDM) and the computed Work Self-Determined Index (W-SDI)
gave a positive value. The population also corresponded more to questions related to Intrinsic
rather than Extrinsic motivation and showed least correspondence to questions related to
Amotivation. These implied that the sample population had self-determined or Intrinsic work
motivation. Significant differences were observed for the two age groups namely 25 and Below
and Above 25 years of age. The latter was more positively self-determined to work as evident by
the significantly different scores for the Work Self-Determined Index (W-SDI). In general, the
respondents had a self-determined/intrinsic work motivation, which implied that work-related
activities were performed for the inherent satisfaction and positive experience. For the Focus
Group Discussion, 12 respondents were chosen randomly to represent both age groups. Results
showed that the 25 and Below participants were motivated by people, working environment,
knowledge, money, career advancement, passion for work and career challenge while the Above
25 were motivated to work by people, money, working environment and competition. It is
recommended that the 25 and Below be oriented for career guidance and development while the
Above 25 be oriented for enhancing wage, work environment and personal and professional
networks.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
4
Table of Contents
Introduction
Background of the Study
Statement of the Problem and Thesis Statement
Research Objectives
Research Questions
Scope and Limitations
Significance of the Study
Definition of Terms
Review of Related Literature
Conceptual Framework
Methodology
Presentation, Interpretation and Analysis of Data
Summary and Conclusion
Recommendations
References
Appendices
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
15
16
17
24
25
28
29
5
Introduction
Background of the Study
According to Goudreau (2013), 80 million young Americans belong in the Generation Y
cohort, or Millenial generation, who are around the ages of 18 to 35. By 2014, they are expected
to be 36% of the US workforce. By 2020, they will comprise of nearly half of all the workers.
This generation is different from their older counterparts because these employees value both
intrinsically and extrinsically motivating tasks. This makes their attitude toward work and
expectations from employers different. According to Goudreau (2013), “Millenials are more
likely to look for meaning and impact in their work… and helping them understand their role in a
larger plan gives them a clearer sense of purpose.” These types of employees view their job as a
continuation of their education because they need to feel that they are learning (Bacharach,
2011). They are open to new challenges and manageable risks to widen opportunities for career
advancement (Bacharach, 2011). Besides valuing work-life balance, this generation is
characterized to be pragmatic (Volkert, 2012). These employees look at salary, benefits and
room for professional growth before other factors in job opportunities. According to Volkert
(2012), “Four out of 10 Millenials… said they planned to stay at their current job up to two
years, and only one in five intend to stay six years or more.” They have the tendency to look for
greener pastures if their current company does not offer them room for more growth. They are
lured to a competitor if they are offered increased pay and benefits, opportunities for
advancement and more interesting work.” This is the issue that today’s managers face in
handling the next generation of workers.
Statement of the Problem & Thesis Statement
The Generation Y cohort is motivated differently according to Goudreau (2013),
Bacharach (2011) and Volkert (2012), therefore, the statement of the problem is as follows,
How can the employees from the Generation Y cohort be motivated better by managers today?
This problem statement poses as an issue within the generation group because these employees
seem to show signs of being motivated negatively such as being lured to the competitor when
offered higher pay, benefits and career advancement according to Volkert (2012). The researcher
of this study makes a proposal through the thesis statement,
Employees from the Generation Y cohort, together with their personal profile, need to be
assessed using the WEIMS to determine their level of motivation.
Research Objective & Research Question
1. To describe the profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, position and
department
a. How are 25 and below and Above 25 different in terms of their age, gender,
position and department?
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
6
b. What are the distinctive features in the respondents’ profile in terms of their age,
gender, position and department?
2. To determine the level of motivation through the WEIMS.
a. What is the self-determination profile (W-SDI) of the respondents in general?
b. What is the type of motivation that the respondents in general correspond to the
most?
c. What is the type of motivation that the respondents in general correspond to the
least?
3. To compare 25 and Below and Above 25 using the Mann Whitney U Wilcoxon Test.
a. What is/are the motivation types that has/have a significant difference between
the two groups
b. Is there a significant difference between two groups in terms of the W-SDI?
4. To determine the factors that motivates the respondents to work through Focus Groups
Discussions?
a. How are the respondents motivated? Through what factors?
5. To suggest strategic recommendations for both age groups through expert opinions.
a. How can the two age groups be managed knowing their level of motivation and
the factors that motivate them?
Scope and Limitations
This is a descriptive-comparative study focused on one real-estate services firm. The
intention for choosing a single firm is to compare motivations between two age groups, which
are the Above 25 group and the 25 and below group. It was conducted from May to October
2014. In this company, a total of 56 employees were included in the study, which is 60% of the
total population of 93. More than half of the total number of employees in the firm was able to
participate and answer the WEIMS survey questionnaire.
The office employees (60% of the population) are from the Generation Y cohort. They
were divided into two age groups, namely, the Above 25 group and the 25 and below group
because the average age of all the respondents is 25. They were divided into two groups to be
compared against the different motivation types of the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation
Scale (WEIMS). These types are intrinsic motivation, integration, identification, introjection,
external regulation and amotivation. They will also be compared to the Work Self Determination
Index (W-SDI), which is the overall index that shows whether the office employees are more
inclined to motivation more positively or negatively. The statistical tool that is suitable for this
study is the Mann Whitney U Wilcoxon because it compares two specific groups against a
specific variable. It tests the significant differences between two groups. If the results are
insignificant, then the two groups are not different against that specific variable. Descriptive
statistics are also included to show the results of the WEIMS of the two age groups, which
includes the six types of motivations, the W-SDI, the W-SDM (which is the sum of intrinsic
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
7
motivation, integration and identification) and the W-NSDM (which is the sum of introjection,
external regulation and amotivation).
In the Review of Related Literature section, there are a total of four studies. The first
study by Deci and Ryan (Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classical Definitions and New
Directions, 2000) is used as the main reference of the present study because it elaborates on the
six motivational types that makes up the Self-Determination Theory (SDT). It is also the basis
for the other authors that used the theory to explain the role of motivation in all three studies.
The second study by Tremblay et. al. (Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its Value
for Organizational Psychology Research, 2009) used the SDT to make the WEIMS and test it on
three studies but only Study 3 was further elaborated in the present study because it used the
exact same scale as the researcher. Study 1 and 2 were not mentioned because the authors
(Tremblay et. al.) used a different scale to test the variables in those two studies. The third study
by Stoeber et. al. (Perfectionism and Workaholism in Employees: The Role of Work Motivation,
2013) was explained in the present study not to incorporate the variables of perfectionism and
workaholism but to explain the consistent use of the WEIMS. The WEIMS is used on workers
themselves in their study, which is also the focus of the present study where the participants are
office employees of a real estate services firm. The last study by Leahy et. al. (Intelligence
Community Assessment: Generational Differences in Workplace Motivation, 2011) is about the
motivational differences in Generation X and Y. The research is similar to the present research
because the focus is on age groups but between the Above 25 group and the 25 and Below group
within Generation Y.
The statistical treatment for this study was the Mann Whitney U Wilcoxon test which is
used to compare two groups against a specific variable to find out if there is a significant
difference or not. The two groups to be compared are 25 and Below and Above 25. Further
analysis will include a Focus Group Discussion consisting of 12 respondents where 6 represent
both age groups. They were asked one question, “What are the things that motivate you to
work?” This question will help figure out what factors motivate these representatives to work.
Furthermore, strategic recommendations will be given to both age groups for the company to
better handle them in the workplace.
Significance of the Study
This study contributes to the better management of the Generation Y workforce in terms
of knowing their characteristics, motivation type and motivation factors. As mentioned earlier,
these employees will take over almost half of the workforce after a decade. In the long run, the
participating real estate firm can use the results and strategic recommendations to help them
handle the younger workforce better. Identifying the extrinsic and intrinsic work motivations and
motivational factors of the employees can give the firm insights on how to further encourage
productivity, loyalty and high quality works from the employees. This can be one strategy to
further increase sales and revenue in future company endeavors.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
8
Definition of Terms
Terms related to age
Generation Y - is the age group born between 1980 and 2000. Motivators are working in teams,
structure and supervision and feedback. Irritators are inflexible working hours and isolated work
(Leahy et. al., 2011).
Terms related to motivation
Motivation – Pinder defined work motivation as “a set of energetic forces that originate both
within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to
determine its form, direction, intensity and duration” (as cited in Tremblay et al., 2009, p. 213).
Intrinsic motivation – the prototype of self-determined behavior characterized by spontaneity in
which an individual exercises and extends capacities for which he or she has intrinsic interest in
doing an activity. These activities may have the appeal of novelty, challenge, or aesthetic value,
and one often perform these for its inherent satisfaction and positive experiences to fulfill the
needs for competence and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Extrinsic motivation – a construct that pertains to an activity done out of an instrumental reason
which varies to the extent of which behaviors represent self-determination in order to attain some
separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Integrated regulation - occurs through self-examination and bringing new regulations into
congruence with one’s other values and needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Identified regulation - where the person identifies the behavior as highly valued and important
and has thus accepted its regulation as his or her own The activity will thus be performed freely
even if it is not pleasant in itself because behavior is emitted out of choice (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Introjected regulation - in which people perform such actions with the feeling of pressure in
order to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego-enhancements or pride (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
External regulation – in which behaviors are performed through external means such as rewards
and constraints to satisfy an external demand (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Amotivation - the state of lack of intention to act (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Self-determination theory - It is specifically framed in terms of social and environmental factors
that facilitate and undermine intrinsic motivation that is an inherent organic propensity (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). It is catalyzed (rather than caused) inside individuals who conduce towards its
expression under certain conditions. It also proposes that extrinsic motivation vary in degrees of
autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The more one’s extrinsically motivated actions become selfdetermined, the more one internalizes the reason for an action and assimilates them to the self
(Ryan & Deci, 2000)
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
9
Review of Related Literature
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classical Definitions and New Directions
Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci
2000
Introduction
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations have been widely studied in order to differentiate the
two main types clearly. Researches in this review have contributed to a contemporary
perspective in defining the concepts to make it relevant in the workplace today. Most theories in
the past viewed motivation as varying in terms of quantity where it “…varies from very little…
to a great deal of it” (p. 54). It explains the different amounts within individuals but there are also
types that “…concerns the underlying attitudes and goals that give rise to action – that is, it
concerns the why of actions” (p. 54). The first type is called intrinsic motivation where an act is
done out of intrinsic interest because it is inherently satisfying or enjoyable. This is where
“…one grows in knowledge and skills” (p. 56). This may be the ideal type of motivation but it
“…appears to be expressed only under specifiable conditions” (p. 58) because “… most activities
people do are not, strictly speaking, intrinsically motivated” (p. 60). Individuals grow older
assuming “… responsibility for non intrinsically interesting tasks” (p. 60). This is reflected in
extrinsic motivation which is divided into four types, namely, integration, identification,
introjection and external regulation. Integration is the most positive type of extrinsic motivation
because an action is fully incorporated into oneself. When an act is more viewed as personally
important to reach goals or objectives, the individual is motivated through identification. The
types of extrinsic motivation become more negative as the stronger sense of external control
becomes more present than volition. The next type of motivation that causes an individual to act
out of negative feelings, called introjection, because the goal is to gain acceptance by others. The
most negative type of extrinsic motivation is called external regulation because an act is done to
gain rewards. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation propels people to act but there is a type of
motivation that is defined in lacking the intention to act called amotivation. All these motivation
types are combined to form the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) that behaves as a continuum
from positive (intrinsic motivation) to negative (amotivation).
Theoretical Framework
Significance to the Researcher
This study will provide the main theoretical framework for all the succeeding researchers
who applied the SDT as a scale (WEIMS; Tremblay et. al., 2009) and used it to study other
variables (Stoeber et. al., Leahy et. al.).
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
10
Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its Value for Organizational Psychology
Research
Maxime A. Tremblay, Celine M. Blanchard, Sarah Taylor, Luc Pelletier and Martin Villeneuve
2009
Introduction
“The Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) is an 18-item measure of
work motivation theoretically grounded in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000).” It
focuses on the why of behavior where it distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation (IM) is defined as “…doing an activity for its own sake because one finds
the activity inherently interesting and satisfying.” This is found at the high-end of the continuum,
which means that it is the most positive out of all the motivation types. The next type is called
integration (INTEG) where the activity done becomes part of oneself. This is the most positive
type of motivation but in its extrinsic form. The next type refers to an activity that becomes
identifiable to one’s goals or objectives called identification (IDEN). Along the continuum is the
third type of extrinsic motivation called introjection (INTRO), which is negative because one
behaves to gain acceptance by others in order to increase self-worth. The last type of extrinsic
motivation is called external regulation (ER) where an act is done to gain rewards. At the lowend is amotivation (AMO), which is neither intrinsic nor extrinsic motivation. It is “… the lack
of intention to act or act passively.”
Theoretical Framework
Methodology
The present research has three studies involved but Study 1 and Study 2 were not further
elaborated because the authors (Tremblay et. al.) used a different scale to measure the variables
in both studies. Study 3 is the most relevant because they used the same scale as the researcher of
this study The participants for Study 3 consisted of a sample of 192 workers from different
organizations in the Ottawa-Gatineau region (the region found between the US-Canadian
border). They were instructed to answer the WEIMS, which has a Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly). The scale was used to examine
self-determined against nonself-determined motivation. Self-determined motivation is translated
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
11
as W-SDM, which is the sum of IM, INTEG and IDEN. Similarly, nonself-determined
motivation is also the W-NSDM, which is the sum of INTRO, EXT and AMO. Both the W-SDM
and the W-NSDM were used to link with organizational involvement, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship and deviant behaviors which had its own respective
scales answered by the participants.
Results
The regression analysis showed that W-SDM is positively linked to organizational
involvement, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship. This means that individuals
are “… more likely to act (react) positively toward the organization and his or her fellow
coworkers” (p. 221). On the other hand, W-NSDM showed to be positively linked to deviant
behaviors. This means that individuals are more likely to engage in behaviors that are harmful to
other individuals within the organization.
Significance to the Researchers
The Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) was also used in the present
study to determine the level of motivation among real estate services employees.
Perfectionism and Workaholism in Employees: The Role of Work Motivation
Joachim Stoeber, Charlotte R. Davis, and Jessica Townley
2013
Introduction
The role of motivation in perfectionism and workaholism has not been widely studied
according to the researchers (Stoeber et. al., 2013). They used the work Extrinsic and Intrinsic
Motivation Scale (WEIMS) to find out if workers are more motivated positively or negatively
within the context of perfectionism and workaholism. This study will only be used by the
researcher to explain the consistency in using the WEIMS and will not incorporate the variables,
perfectionism and workaholism, in the present study. The scale is mainly used on workers
themselves and measure if their motivation type/s are more inclined to positive or negative in
general. The aim of Stoeber et. al. (2013) was “…to investigate the role of employees’ work
motivation for themselves (not for others).” This is the reason why they disregarded otheroriented perfectionism because it is defined as “…holding perfectionistic standards for others”
(p. 3). Their main variables include self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed
perfectionism, which are defined as “… setting standards for oneself…” and “… the belief that
others have high standards for oneself…” respectively (p. 3). The orientation is the same because
the intention for setting high standards is towards oneself. On the other hand, the source of
having high standards are different because the former came from oneself and the latter came
from other people. Stoeber et. al. (2013) further investigated the role of work motivation on
workaholism which is defined as “…being driven to work.” They expected that workaholism
would be linked to identification, introjection and external regulation, which mean that it can be
associated with both positive and negative motivation types. This is similar to self-oriented
perfectionism which is linked to both positive and negative motivation types except amotivation
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
12
while self-prescribed perfectionism is only linked to the negative types, namely, introjection,
external regulation and amotivation.
Theoretical Framework
Methodology
131 employees completed the WEIMS along with two other surveys for perfectionism
and workaholism. The authors investigated on the link between perfectionism and workaholism
using the work motivation types. The work motivation types were correlated to self-oriented and
socially-prescribed perfectionism and workaholism. After that, a mediation analysis was used to
investigate which of the motivation types are significant in the link between perfectionism and
workaholism.
Results
Firstly, self-oriented and socially-prescribed perfectionism showed different correlations.
Self oriented perfectionism showed positive correlations with intrinsic motivation, integration,
identification and introjection. In contrast, socially-prescribed perfectionism showed positive
correlations with introjection, external regulation and amotivation. “All types of motivation
showed positive correlations with workaholism except amotivation” (p. 8). Secondly, regression
analysis showed that only self-oriented perfectionism was a significant positive predictor of
workaholism. Lastly, the mediation analysis showed that identification and introjection were
both significant in the link between perfectionism and workaholism.
Significance to the Researcher
The WEIMS is used on workers themselves in this study, which is also the focus of the
present study where the participants are office employees of a real estate services firm.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
13
Intelligence Community Assessment: Generational Differences in Workplace Motivation
Kevin Leahy, James McGinley, Jennifer Thompson and Tim Weese
2011
Introduction
The authors (Leahy, et. al.) focused on Generation X and Y because of “… their
impending rise in the workforce” (p. 4) but the age-based workforce in general is important
because they embody different value systems and attributes” (p. 4). This means that the two
generations are motivated differently. Generation X is the age group born between 1960 and
1979. The motivators to work are freedom and independence. Irritators are authority figures and
formalities. On the other hand, Generation Y is the age group born between 1980 and 2000.
Motivators are working in teams, structure and supervision and feedback. Irritators are inflexible
working hours and isolated work. The WEIMS will be used in determining their preference on
workplace motivators.
Theoretical Framework
Methodology
The study is qualitative so the authors (Leahy et. al.) used the Delphi Method to
investigate on the preferences of workplace motivators of Generation X and Y. A total of 19
respondents answered the WEIMS with 10 coming from Generation X and 9 from Generation Y.
The mean age for Generation X is 42.3 and 27.2 for Generation Y. In Round 1, the participants
were instructed to rank the top five preferred workplace motivators based on the WEIMS. They
were also instructed to provide additional motivators under the section containing their
comments. The results of Round 1 were consolidated and the same survey was used again in
Round 2 with the additional motivators added by the participants. Then they were instructed to
rank the top five preferred workplace motivators again.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
14
Results
The results showed that both Generation X and Y were different in workplace motivation
preferences. The top five preferences of Generation X were all intrinsic compared to Generation
Y, which has a combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation preferences. Specifically,
the extrinsic preferences of Generation Y refer to external regulation or the motivation to gain
rewards.
Significance to the Researcher
This study is about the motivational differences in Generation X and Y. It is similar to the
present research because the focus is on age groups but between the Above 25 group and the 25
and Below group within Generation Y.
Expert Opinions – Articles used for the “Strategic Recommendations” Section
How to Manage and Motivate Generation Y Employees
Charles A. Volkert
2012
Introduction
This article is about understanding the Generation Y cohort and the things that motivate
them to work. The first section opens with a snapshot of the generation, describing their main
positive and negative characteristics. The second section consists of suggestions given by the
author on making the workplace more “Millenial-friendly.”
About the Author, Charles A. Volkert
Charles A. Volkert is executive director of Robert Half Legal, a leading staffing service
specializing in the placement of attorneys, paralegals legal administrators and other legal
professionals with law firms and corporate legal departments.
7 Surprising Ways to Motivate Millennial Workers
Jenna Goudreau
2013
Introduction
This article is about the seven ways to motivate Millenials in the workforce. It starts out
with an opening paragraph saying that the generation will comprise of nearly half the workforce
by 2020. This further explains ways on motivating them: Explain the company vision, prioritize
community service, develop in-between steps and titles, give encouragement and regular
feedback, offer more flexibility, provide education and professional development and give them
time for personal projects.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
15
About the Author, Jenna Goudreau
Jenna Goudreau has been writing at Forbes about business and leadership for 5 years,
attracting nearly a million unique visitors to Forbes.com each month. She was also the assistant
editor of the annual World’s 100 Most Powerful Women package and helped launch and grow
ForbesWoman.com. She has appearend on CBS, CNBC, MSNBC and E Entertainment and
spoke often at conferences and events on women's leadership topics. She was honored with a
best in business award from the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW) in
2012. Her work has appeared in Businessweek, Ladies’ Home Journal, The Aesthete and Acura
Style.
Gen-Y Employees: How to Motivate Them
Samuel B. Bacharach
2011
Introduction
The article is about motivating the Generation Y cohort. This section consists with ways
of motivating them: Make your expectations clear, develop ad coach, stretch the comfort zone,
promote team cohesiveness and encourage career planning – even outside your company.
About the Author, Samuel B. Bacharach
Samuel B. Bacharach is a Columnist in Inc.com and the Director of Cornell’s Institute of
Workplace Studies in New York City. He is a Kelvin-Grant professor in the department of
organizational behavior at Cornell University’s ILR School. Among his books are Get Them on
Your Side and Keep Them on Your Side and most recent volumes are A Good Idea is Not
Enough: Leading for Change and Innovation.
Conceptual Framework
Age Groups ---------------> Assessment using WEIMS ----------> Level of Motivation
(25 and Below
/\
and Above 25)
|
|
|
|
Personal Profile
- Age
- Gender
- Position
- Department
The conceptual framework is a process that starts with the age groups, 25 and Below and
Above 25. The employees from both groups will be assessed using the Work Extrinsic and
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
16
Intrinsic Work Motivation Scale (WEIMS) to determine their level of motivation in general.
Along with their age, gender and position will also undergo assessment.
Methodology
Research Design
The research is a descriptive-comparative study because it aims to describe the results of
the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) and compare the two age groups in
Generation Y, namely, the Above 25 group and the 25 and Below group.
Locale of the Study
To determine the types of work motivations in the local setting with Filipino employees,
a real-estate services firm was engaged. The identified firm was KMC MAG Group, an
internationally recognized company that is situated at Bonifacio Global City in Taguig City.
Services offered by KMC include tenant investments and representation and facilities and
property management. This firm handles residential and industrial transactions to local, as well
as international clients.
Target population and the sampled employees of KMC MAG Group
A total of 93 employees were currently employed by KMC MAG Group and all of these
were targeted to be included in the study. Out of these 93 possible samples, 56 employees were
able to answer the WEIMS questionnaires and the consent forms. This represented the total of
60.2% of office employees of the company. Thirty-four employees (36.6%) were not engaged
since they were often out of the office for fieldwork.
Data Gathering Procedure
Prior to the start of the study, the consent of key supervisors in the company was secured
to allow the distribution of the survey questionnaires to the employees. Once the permission and
cooperation of the supervisors were obtained, the employees were engaged and oriented with the
procedure of the study. Information sheets were distributed to the targeted samples. Information
indicated in these sheets included the project title, purpose of the study, authors name and
credentials, clause of confidentiality and other pertinent information (Appendix A). Once the
objectives of the study were presented, consent forms (Appendix B) were distributed to the
employees and each of one of them was requested to accomplish these forms. This showed that
the subjects agreed to be a part of the surveyed population. After the consent forms were
properly filled-up and signed, the WEIMS questionnaires were distributed to the employees and
each of them were asked to carefully read and answer each of the 18 questions included in the
survey form (Appendix C).
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
17
Statistical Treatment and Analysis
The analysis opened with the description the respondents’ profile, which include age,
gender, position and department. These different factors were explained by differentiating the
two age groups, 25 and Below and Above 25. Distinctive features were also indicated about each
factor. Then the level of motivation of the employees in general was determined through the
Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) where the results where shown as
descriptive statistics. Their components of the WEIMS were shown, which are W-SDI, W-SDM,
W-NSDM and the six motivation types. Then the two age groups were tested using the Mann
Whitney U Wilcoxon tool, which is used to compare two groups against a specific variable to
find out if there is a significant difference or not. These specific variables are the six motivation
types and the W-SDI. For the qualitative component, focus group discussion was conducted to
determine the factors that motivate the age groups to work. There was at total of 12 respondents
who participated with representing both groups. They were asked one question, which was
“What are the things that motivate you to work?” The FGD was conducted on October 8, 2014.
Presentation, Interpretation and Analysis of Data
The results of the WEIMS survey forms were collected and analyzed. The profiles of the
sampled population were extracted, including age, sex and employee’s departments at the firm
(Table 1). Majority of the respondents (32 or 57.1%) were 25 years old and below, while 24
(42.9%) were older. More than half of the participants were females (67.9%) while 32.1% were
males. Most of the respondents were from the Sales and Sales Support Department (37.5%),
followed by Human Resources (26.8%) and Marketing (17.9%). The remaining 17.9% of the
employees came from other departments such as i) Finance and Accounting - 10.7%; ii)
Information Technology - 3.6%; iii) Consultancy and Research - 1.8%; and iv) Office of the
Managing Director - 1.8%. Appendix D presents the listing of respondents’ actual positions in
the company.
Table 4.
Demographic profiles of the 56 office employees of KMC MAG Group to determine
the types of work motivation of the sampled population
Frequency
Percentage
25 and Below
32
57.1%
Above 25
24
42.9%
38
67.9%
Age
Gender
Female
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
18
Male
18
32.1%
Sales and Sales Support
21
37.5%
Human Resources
15
26.8%
Marketing
10
17.9%
Other Departments
10
17.9%
Finance and Accounting
6
10.7%
Information Technology
2
3.6%
Consultancy and Research
1
1.8%
Office of the Managing Director
1
1.8%
56
100.0%
Department
TOTAL (N=)
The first department in Table 4 has 37.5% or most of the office employees in the
company. They are further broken down into 11 and 10 from Sales and Sales Support
respectively. The youngest employee in the Sales side is 24 years old but the majority of them
are above 25 holding managerial positions. In contrast, most of the employees in the Sales
Support side are on the associate level ages 25 and below with one supervisor that belongs to the
Above 25 group. As a whole, females dominate the department in the office.
Human Resources has 26.8% of the total office employees in the company. The 25 and
below and Above 25 age groups consist of 7 and 8 respectively. The youngest employees start at
the age of 19 years old where majority are females. Most of the younger employees are sourcing
associates. The older group is in charge of payroll, legal responsibilities, administration, account
management, benefits and recruitment.
The third department with 17.9% of the office employees is Marketing. Majority of the
employees are females, ages 25 and below and hold associate positions. These titles include
Marketing Assistant, Digital Marketing Specialist and Web Developer. In addition, 2 employees
have managerial titles from both age groups, specifically ages 25 and 29 years old.
The Finance department has 10.7% of the total office employees with an equal number in
gender and age groups. The 25 and Below group are in charge of procurement, accounting and
financial analysis. The Above 25 group has 2 Revenue Accountants and 1 Vice President.
The other departments in the office include 2 associates from Information Technology
and 2 employees from Research and Consulting and Office of the Managing Director. The IT
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
19
associates are ages 25 and below while the other 2 employees hold higher positions as Manager
and Executive Assistant respectively.
In general, majority or 37.5% of office employees are from the Sales and Sales Support
since they work in a real estate services firm. Secondly, females dominate in four out of seven
departments, namely, Sales and Sales Support, Human Resources, Marketing and Office of the
Managing Director. Lastly, the 25 and below age group comprise of 57.1% of the office
population dominating Marketing, Sales Support and Information Technology. Likewise, the
Above 25 group dominates Sales and Human Resources.
Table 1 presents the average work self-determined motivation (W-SDM), work nonselfdetermined motivation (W-NSDM), and work self-determination index (W-SDI) scores of the
respondents. The relatively high median scores of the W-SDM subscales (IM + INTEG + IDEN)
showed that the subjects moderately identified to questions pertaining to work self-determined
motivation. The comparably lower W-NSDM subscale scores (INTRO + ER + AMO) indicated
that the respondents identified more weakly with those questionnaire items that pertained to
work non self-determined motivation.
Table 1.
Median scores for 3 work motivation measures of the 56 employees of KMC MAG
Group obtained using the Work and Intrinsic Motivation Scale
Work Motivation Measure
Median
Verbal Interpretation*
W–SDI (= 3IM + 2INTEG + 1IDEN 1INTRO - 2ER - 3AMO)
8.00
Self-Determined Profile
W–SDM (= IM + INTEG + IDEN)
16.00
Intrinsic motivation (IM)
6.00
Corresponds Exactly
Integrated regulation (INTEG)
5.00
Corresponds Moderately
Identified regulation (IDEN)
5.00
Corresponds Moderately
W–NSDM (= AMO + ER + INTRO)
13.00
Introjected regulation (INTRO)
5.00
Corresponds Moderately
External regulation (ER)
5.00
Corresponds Moderately
Amotivation (AMO)
3.00
Corresponds Moderately
Legend: W-SDM = self-determined motivation, W-SDM = work self-determined motivation, W-SDI =
work self-determination index.
*On the Likert-type scale per questionnaire item: 1-2 Does not correspond at all; 3-5 Corresponds
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
20
moderately; 6-7 Corresponds exactly
“The W-SDI may be particularly useful when researchers want to select individuals who
display either a self-determined or nonself-determined motivational profile” (Tremblay et. al.,
2009, p. 216). When computing for the index, each weight is multiplied by each motivation
types, as shown in the formula,
W–SDI = 3IM + 2INTEG + 1IDEN - 1INTRO - 2ER - 3AMO
“The range for possible scores on the W-SDI is ± 36 for a 7-point Likert scale…” (Tremblay et.
al., 2009, p. 216), as shown in the formulas,
Max: 3*7 + 2*7 + 1*7 – 1*1 – 2*1 – 3*1 = 36
Min: 3*1 + 2*1 + 1*1 – 1*7 – 2*7 – 3*7 = -36
The formula for +36 shows that positive weights are multiplied by the maximum point,
which is 7. Likewise, negative weights are multiplied by the minimum point, which is 1. The
formula for -36 shows a formula where the minimum point is multiplied by positive weights and
the maximum point is multiplied by the negative weights. Overall, since the median of 8 shows
positive W-SDI, it was concluded that the respondents generally had a self–determined profile,
specifically intrinsic work motivation. They also corresponded least queries indicating
amotivation (Figure 2). Analyzing the median score of each motivation type, it was shown that
the respondents had greater correspondence with intrinsic over extrinsic work motivations.
Figure 1.
Overall scores of each self-determination theory motivational subscale from the
56 respondents of KMC MAG Group obtained using the Work and Intrinsic
Motivation
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
21
The age groups, namely, Above 25 and 25 and Below, has the mean age of 25 years old.
The basis for this mean is from the study by Leahy et. al. (2011) whose respondents had a similar
mean age of 27 years old from the same Generational cohort.
Table 6 presents the comparison of Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation of the
respondents according to their age. With p-values above 0.05, no significant difference was
observed on Intrinsic motivation, Integrated regulation, Identified regulation, Introjected
regulation and External regulation while significance was observed on Amotivation and on W–
SDI with p-values below 0.05.
Median scores of each motivational subscale disaggregated into two age groups
of the 56 respondents from KMC MAG Group obtained using the Work Extrinsic
and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS)
Table 2.
Age
Intrinsic
motivation
Integrated
regulation
Identified
regulation
Introjected
regulation
External
regulation
Amotivation
W–SDI
Median
Range
25 and Below
Above 25
25 and Below
Above 25
25 and Below
Above 25
25 and Below
Above 25
25 and Below
Above 25
25 and Below
Above 25
25 and Below
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.50
5.00
5.50
5.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
6.50
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
-4 - 20
Above 25
13.00
-4 - 22
Whitney
Mann U
Statistics
P-value
Verbal
Interpretation
301.00
0.152
Not
Significant
303.00
0.166
Not
Significant
362.00
0.702
Not
Significant
373.00
0.851
Not
Significant
311.50
0.210
Not
Significant
259.00
0.033
Significant
218.00
0.006
Significant
Based on the age of the sample subjects, the two groups corresponded exactly on Intrinsic
motivation with a median value of 6.0, implying an insignificant difference for this type of work
motivation. The same scenario was also observed on Integrated regulation, Identified regulation,
Introjected regulation and External regulation. Both age groups corresponded moderately on
these variables. The “Range” column corresponds to the 7-point Likert scale in the WEIMS
except for the W-SDI. The ranges (-4 – 20) and (-4 – 22) were obtained from the individual W-
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
22
SDI of each respondent. It was consolidated then the minimum and the maximum were obtained
for both age groups. The full table is found in Appendix D.
Figure 2
presents Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation of the respondents
according to age. As observed, respondents of different ages had the
same perception except on Amotivation.
For amotivation, respondents ages 25 and below corresponded moderately on this
negative type of external motivation while those ages above 25 did not respond at all implying a
significance difference. Amotivation is the state of lacking an intention to act where it results
from not valuing an activity, not feeling competent to do it, or not believing it will yield a desired
outcome according to Ryan and Deci (2000).
This is related to the W-SDI where above 25 has a higher result than 25 and below which
shows that the older group has a more positive self-determination. According to Trembaly et. al.
(2009), “The WSD-I may be particularly useful when researchers want to select individuals who
display either a self-determined or nonself-determined motivational profile.” On the overall Selfdetermination index, both respondents ages 25 and below and above 25 were with positive
scores. These results imply that both of these groups had Self-determined motivation.
Focus Group Discussion was conducted on October 9, 2014 at the same company. Twelve
respondents were invited to participate in the discussion, half of which represented the 25 and
Below age group. All of the participants previously participated in the WEIMS survey. The
question that was given to the participants was:
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
23
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
The 25 and Below group indicated a total of 7 motivating work factors as follows,
1. People, Working Environment
2. Knowledge
3. Money, Career Advancement, Passion for Work, Career Challenge
People and Working Environment were ranked as the highest motivating factors to work by
four of the respondents. People refer to co-workers and superiors as mentioned by Respondent
#1 from the group. She said, “I get along with them very well and I learn a lot from them. It
helps me grow as a person and it makes me feel satisfied with my current role.” A similar
response came from Respondent #3 but more about the Working Environment. She said, “If I am
in a working environment that I love, I tend to be more productive.” The other two respondents
mentioned the two factors together with the same reason Respondent #2 said, “I feel comfortable
working here and I like to staying where I am now.” Respondent #4 said, “I like the people that I
work with here… The working environment is also good here which in turn motivates me to
keep going.”
Respondent #1 and #4 indicated that knowledge is another motivating work factor for them.
They used the same reason when mentioning People. It’s similar to Respondent #2 and #4 who
had the same reason for People and Working Environment.
Respondent #3, #5, and #6 mentioned four unique motivational work factors. Career
Advancement was explained by Respondent #3 who said, “Also, career advancement is one of
the main reason why I am motivated to go to work everyday. I look forward to the new things
that I will learn everyday. No one wants to be stagnant with the knowledge that they already
have.” Respondent #5 described Passion for Work as “… a hobby then now at work proud ako
sa aking sarili dahil ginagamit ang firm ng mga ginawa ko (…I’m proud of myself because the
firm uses my output).” The last two factors Money and Career Challenge were brought up by
Respondent #6 who said, “Salary is the most obvious motivator since the more efficient you
work, the higher chances to get a raise. The other one is for the challenge since I, for one, is
someone who can get bored easily if there are no new stuff to do.”
The Above 25 group indicated a total of 4 motivating work factors as follows,
1. People, Money
2. Working Environment
3. Competition
Respondent #7, #8, #10, #11 and #12 said that People and Money are motivational work
factors. Respondent #7 explained, “Salary is important because I pay for my responsibilities and
provide for the family. It is similar to the response of Respondent #11 who said, “Money,
because I need to work for everything I want.” Respondent #10 had a different kind of reason for
Money because he associated it with Competition explaining, “Competition motivates me to
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
24
work because I like going through the process itself and the money that comes with it.” In terms
of People, Respondent #7 said, I get to interact with people and I’m happy to work with them.” It
is similar to the answer of Respondent #8 who said, “The customer service aspect motivates me
because, for me, it’s a basic human thing to make people happy.” As for Respondent #12, People
and Working Environment were related when he explained, “I like interacting with my
coworkers, saying my views, gathering friends and enriching my social network.” Working
Environment was mentioned as a main motivating work factor for Respondent #9 who said that,
“…it puts fun in the workplace.”
Summary and Conclusion
Work motivation is defined as a set of energetic forces that may stem from within an
individual, as well as from an external source. Both of which compel human resource to work at
a defined form, direction, duration and intensity. The two major types of work motivation are
Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivations and these are based on the Self-Determination Theory.
Intrinsic motivation drives a person to perform his work because the activity is done for its own
sake, which is inherently satisfying and interesting. Extrinsic motivation drives a person to work
due to external factors such as pressure, financial gains, social acceptance and the like. The
subtypes of Extrinsic motivation are Integrated, Identified, Introjected, External regulation and
Amotivation and these subtypes differ in the attitude of a worker towards work, ranging from
lack of any intention to act (Amotivation) to desiring rewards or satisfying an external demand
(External regulation).
This study focused on determining the types of work motivations that govern the
employees of a real-estate services firm located at the local community of Taguig City. Knowing
the types of work motivations of employees can help in managing, improving and encouraging
the younger workforce for greater and a more positive impact. The engaged firm was the
internationally connected KMC MAG Group with a total of 93 staff employed in the company.
Out of these 93 possible sample population, 60.2% participated in the research. The Work
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) was used to determine the types of work
motivations of the participating subjects and the demographic profiles of the 56 participants were
analyzed to determine if these were significantly correlated to the different types of work
motivations.
The demographic profiles of the subjects showed that majority of the sampled population
was 25 years of age and below (57.1%) and 67.9% of all respondents were females. The largest
percentage of subjects belonged to the Sales and Sales Support Department (37.5%).
Analysis of the WEIMS results showed that the subjects had a high average median score
for the Work Self-Determined Motivation (W-SDM) and the 56 respondents identified with the
questions related to Intrinsic work motivation. Computing the Self-Determination Index (WSDI) of the subjects, the median score computed was positive, indicating that the sample
population had self-determined or Intrinsic work motivation. Furthermore, the 56 respondents
corresponded more with questions related to Intrinsic than Extrinsic motivation, and were least
corresponded to Amotivation. The respondents, in generals have a self-determined, or intrinsic
work motivation.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
25
When the results of the WEIMS questionnaire were disaggregated by the demographic
profiles of the respondents, it was shown that there was no significant difference between the two
age groups: 25 and below and above 25 years old, in corresponding to questions related to
Intrinsic motivation and the Extrinsic motivation subtypes Integrated, Identified, Introjected and
External regulations. For Amotivation and the computed W-SDI, a significant difference was
observed, with 25 and below respondents exhibiting less determination than the above 25.
Then 12 respondents were chosen randomly for Focus Groups Discussions where 6 each
were representative of both age groups. The output of the process showed that the 25 and Below
age group was motivated by people, working environment, knowledge, money, career
advancement, passion for work and career challenge while the Above 25 participants were
motivated to work by people, money, working environment and competition.
Recommendations
For the 25 and Below age group
The 25 and Below age group mentioned in the Focus Groups Discussion about 7 motivating
work factors, namely, people, working environment, knowledge, money, career advancement,
passion for work and career challenge. Some of the respondents said that people, either coworkers or superiors, motivate them to progress in their day-to-day work. This is also true for the
work environment since it makes them productive. They also mentioned that money, career
advancement, career challenge and passion for work also motivate them to work every day. This
shows that the respondents want to progress in their work. Since majority of them have the
associate job title, their strategic recommendation is oriented on career guidance and
development. Earlier, the results of the statistical tests show that there was a significant
difference between the two groups in terms of amotivation where 25 and Below showed higher
results. These recommendations can help in lessening that negative type of extrinsic motivation.
According to Volkert (2012), “…Gen Y places a premium on close supervision and frequent
feedback from their managers… Having a supervisor they respect and can learn from is the most
important aspect of their work environment.” He suggests that in-house training programs that
provide seasonal employees as mentors to the younger group can help in guiding them in their
professional development. These mentors can give them tasks that will challenge their skills and
develop multiple competencies. These tasks can range from team leadership to project
management. According to Goudreau (2013), “Generation Y people welcome new challenges
and a manageable degree of risk… They see an opportunity to take on a new challenge as of vote
of confidence in their abilities.” The objective of the younger group is to progress in their career
life so the guidance they receive from more experienced employees will give them an advantage
in future promotions and better job opportunities.
The company can also provide external training programs and conferences that will give the
younger group more exposure to their line of work. According to Goudreau (2013), “Assigning
stretch projects, bringing in speakers or sending employees to leadership conferences will be
especially helpful for those millennial workers interested in learning and growing their skills.”
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
26
Mentors in the in-house training program can request for guest speakers who specialize in
specific topics and tasks to further gain more knowledge and skills. It will also widen their
perspective about their line of work because someone outside of the company who knows the
business environment through his or her professional expertise is lecturing them.
According to Bacharach (2012), “Generation Y employees view their jobs as a continuation
of their educations. They need to feel they are learning, and they especially appreciate being
coached.” As mentioned earlier, they prioritize close supervision and frequent feedback from
their managers. Volkert (2012) describes a manager they prefer as approachable, communicates
frequently and willing to listen to their ideas and suggestions. He suggests that a “spot
evaluation” can be used instead of an annual performance review. They can be given feedback
after every task and project has been completed. According to Goudreau (2013), “Make it clear
from the beginning that you reward good work, and then keep an open line of communication to
let them know how they’re doing and how they can improve.”
For Above 25 age group
The Above 25 group mentioned four motivating work factors, which are money, people,
working environment and competition. Many of these employees are on the managerial level so
their strategic recommendation will differ from the 25 and below group where majority have the
associate job title. Money is one of the important motivating work factors for them because they
mentioned earlier that it’s a means to pay for their daily responsibilities. The working
environment is also an important factor, which involves people because it is a means to socialize
and enrich personal and professional networks and competition.
As mentioned earlier, majority of the employees in this age group are on the managerial
level. Volkert (2012) suggests, “When hiring for a position… ensure that compensation is
slightly above the average for your industry and region.” Even when not hiring, it’s important to
offer these employees a higher wage to keep them loyal in the company. He further explains,
“Your initial offer should be strong – these professionals prefer getting more money immediately
over the promise of a bonus in the next six or 12 months.” Likewise, they look at the benefits and
how fast they can get it. Volkert (2012) says, “Immediacy is important when it comes to benefits,
too… Try to make benefits such as these [healthcare coverage] take effect as soon as possible.”
People is an important factor to this age groups. Unlike the 25 and Below group, they do
not seek people for guidance but see it as a means of personal and professional networks and
competition. According to Volkert (2012), “Gen Y members tend to be highly social, so create
opportunities for interaction among colleagues. Open seating plans, monthly staff lunches or
Friday morning coffee-and-bagel will help them feel connected and make them more
productive.” Another source of professional connections is through teams. According to
Bacharach (2012), “Team loyalty is a key tool for motivating and retaining Generation Y
members. They identify strongly with their team, often more strongly than they identify with
their company… it gives them a base from which they can move forward.”
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
27
In terms of work environment, work-life balance can be enhanced for this age group.
Goudreau (2013) explained, “This tech-savvy generation is essentially able to work anytime
from anywhere with an internet connection… provided performance remains consistent… while
also showing your trust.” They can be offered more flexible time in their work to make them
more productive. Alongside flexi-time, these employees can work on projects of their choosing.
According to Goudreau (2013), This allows young employees to take initiative, be creative and
produce something on their own… it helps them feel more engaged and in control and also
boosting innovation within the company,”
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
28
References
Bacharach, S. B. (2012). Gen Y employees: how to motivate them. Retrieved from
http://www.inc.com/sam-bacharach/how-to-motivate-your-gen-y employees.html
Gourdreau J. (2013). Seven surprising ways to motivate millenial workers. Retrieved
from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/03/07/7-surprising
ways-to
motivate
millennial-workers/
IBM. (2014). Perform statistical analysis with confidence using IBM SPSS Statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/us/en/
KMC MAG Group. (2014). Philippine Real Estate Services. Retrieved from
http://kmcmaggroup.com/
Leahy, K., McGinley, J., Thompson, J. & Weese, T. (2011). Intelligence Community
Assessment: Generational Differences in Workplace Motivation. American Intelligence
Journal,
29(1).
Retrieved
from
https://nmia.siteym.com/store/ViewProduct.aspx?id=830139
Stoeber, J., Davis, C. R. & Townley, J. (2013). Perfectionism and Workaholism i Employees:
The Role of Work Motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 733-738.
Retrieved
from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913002432
Tremblay, M A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its Value for
Organizational Psychology
Research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 213-226. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cbs/41/4/213/
Ryan, R.M. & Deci E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions
and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Volkert, C. A. (2012). How to manage and motivate generation Y employees.
https://www.alanet.org/careers/articles/How_to_Manage_and_Motivate_Gen
ration_Y
mployees.pdf
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
29
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION SHEET
1. Project Title:
MEASURING WORK MOTIVATION AMONG WORKERS IN AN R.E.S. FIRM
2. Principal Investigator:Ms. Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson
Master of Science in Management (MScM) Candidate, University of
Asia and the Pacific
Contact details:
+639204485543/mariajosefina.tiongson@uap.asia
3. What is the purpose of this study?
This paper aims to measure and describe work motivation of employees of the RES firm
through the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS).
4. Who can participate in the research? What is the expected duration of my
participation? What is the duration of this research?
The following can participate in this research: Full-time employees of KMC MAG Group.
The survey will be administered in May 17-18 2014. The duration of answering the survey
will take 5 to 10 minutes per subject
5. What is the approximate number of participants involved?
The approximate number of participants involved in the study is 54.
6. What will be done if I take part in this research?
You are expected to sign an informed consent document before answering the survey.
7. How will my privacy and the confidentiality of my research records be protected?
We respect your privacy and confidentiality. Rest assured that your identifiable information
(e.g. names) will be coded and known only to the principal investigator. This will not be
released to any other person, nor used for publication/presentation. All your identifiable
information and research data will be assigned an alphanumeric code at the earliest possible
stage of the research.
8. What are the possible discomforts and risks for participants?
There shall be no discomforts and risks for participants. The survey will only take 5 to 10
minutes of the subject’s time, at the subject’s convenience.
9. What is the compensation for any injury?
Since surveys shall be used, injury is unlikely.
10. Will there be reimbursement for participation?
There will be no financial reimbursement for participating in the study.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
30
11. What are the possible benefits to me and to others?
The knowledge gained will benefit the company and its employees by improving the HR
Programs related to motivation.
12. Can I refuse to participate in this research?
Yes, you can. Your decision to participate in this research is voluntary and completely up to
you.
13. Whom should I call if I have any questions or problems?
Please contact the Principal Investigator, Ms. Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson through
+639204485543/mariajosefina.tiongson@uap.asia for all research-related matters.
Thank you very much in advance for your interest and assistance with this research.
Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson, Candidate for Masters of Science in Management
(MScM)
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
31
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM
Project title:
MEASURING WORK MOTIVATION AMONG WORKERS IN AN R.E.S. FIRM
Principal Investigator: Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson
Master of Science in Management (MScM) Candidate
University of Asia and the Pacific School of Management
+639204485543
I hereby acknowledge that:
1. My signature is my acknowledgement that I have agreed to take part in the above
research.
2. I have received a copy of this information sheet that explains the use of my data in this
research. I understand its contents and agree to donate my data for the use of this
research.
3. I can withdraw from the research at any point of time by informing the Principal
Investigator and all my data will be discarded.
* This research has been explained to me in Filipino, which I understand, by
___________________ (name of translator) on ________________ (date).
_______________________________
Name and Signature (Participant)
___________
Date
_______________________________
Name and Signature (Consent Taker)
___________
Date
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
32
APPENDIX C
SURVEY FORM
Department:_________
Position: _________
Age: _________
M / F: _________
Why Do You Do Your Work?
Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds
to the reasons why you are presently involved in your work
Does not correspond at all
1
2
Corresponds moderately
3
4
1. Because this is the type of work I chose to
do to attain a certain lifestyle.
2. For the income it provides me.
3. I ask myself this question, I don’t seem to be able
to manage the important tasks related to this work.
4. Because I derive much pleasure from learning new
things.
5. Because it has become a fundamental part of who I
am.
6. Because I want to succeed at this job, if not I
would be very ashamed of myself.
7. Because I chose this type of work to attain my
career goals.
8. For the satisfaction I experience from taking on
interesting challenges.
9. Because it allows me to earn money.
10. Because it is part of the way in which I have
chosen to live my life.
11. Because I want to be very good at this work,
otherwise I would be very disappointed.
12. I don’t know why, we are provided with
unrealistic working conditions.
13. Because I want to be a “winner” in life.
14. Because it is the type of work I have chosen to
attain certain important objectives.
15. For the satisfaction I experience when I am
successful at doing difficult tasks.
16. Because this type of work provides me with
security
17. I don’t know, too much is expected of us.
18. Because this job is a part of my life.
Corresponds exactly
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
Note. Intrinsic motivation = 4,8,15; integrated regulation = 5,10,18; identified regulation = 1,7,14; introjected regulation =
6,11,13; external regulation = 2,9,16; amotivation = 3,12,17.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
33
APPENDIX D
Table D1.
Positions of the 56 employees at KMC MAG group to determine the types of work
motivation of the sampled population
Positions
Associate Director
Vice President
Account Manager
Other Manager
(Brand/Business/Senior)
Assistant Manager
Administrative
Assistant/Officer
Capital Markets Listings
Associate
Commercial Listings
Associate
Company Nurse/Benefit
Associate
Data Analyst
Digital Marketing Specialist
Employee Relations
Executive Assistant
Financial Analyst
General Accountant
In House Legal Counsel
IT Support
Listings Associate
Marketing
Assistant/Associate
Payroll Assistance/Officer
Procurement Assistant
Recruitment Associate
Residential Associate
Revenue
Accountant/Specialist
Senior Associate
Sourcing Associate
Supervisor
Web Developer
Department
Sales
Fin
Fin
Marketing
and Sales
Sales
HR
Frequency
1
1
2
Percentage
1.8%
1.8%
3.6%
7
11.5%
2
3.6%
3
5.4%
1
1.8%
2
3.6%
1
1.8%
Sales
Mktg
HR
OMD
Fin
Fin
HR
IT
Sales
Mktg
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
1.8%
1.8%
3.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
3.6%
7.1%
4
7.1%
Fin
Fin
HR
Sales
Fin
2
1
1
2
3.6%
1.8%
1.8%
3.6%
2
3.6%
Sales
Sales
Sales
Marketing
1
5
1
3
1.8%
8.9%
1.8%
5.4%
Sales
Sales
HR
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
34
TOTAL
56
100%
*Legend: Fin – Finance and accounting; HR – Human resources; IT – Information technology; Mktg – Marketing;
OMD – Office of the managing director; Res – Consultancy and research; Sales – Sales and sales support
Table D2. Maximum and Minimum W-SDI of 25 and Below
Respondents
Age
6
19
7
19
8
19
20
19
18
20
22
20
23
20
2
21
9
21
14
21
19
21
25
21
43
21
47
21
13
22
24
22
26
22
42
22
3
23
4
23
11
23
21
23
34
23
16
24
17
24
35
24
10
25
15
25
27
25
31
25
49
25
54
25
Minimum W-SDI
Maximum W-SDI
W-SDI
8
9
7
2
4
8
-3
20
5
15
9
1
6
20
9
12
6
15
8
7
5
-1
14
5
9
5
2
3
3
2
8
-4
-4
20
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
35
Table D3. Maximum and Minimum W-SDI of 25 and Below
Respondents
Age
5
26
32
26
39
26
45
26
51
26
40
27
46
27
52
27
53
27
29
28
12
29
37
29
38
29
48
29
33
30
41
30
56
31
1
32
30
32
36
32
55
32
44
33
28
34
50
43
Minimum W-SDI
Maximum W-SDI
W-SDI
16
0
15
18
18
14
13
7
4
11
-4
15
15
13
9
22
9
8
19
16
11
2
6
15
-4
22
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
36
APPENDIX E
Process of Scoring (Based on Tremblay Study)
The WEIMS can be used to generate that index by multiplying the mean of each
subscale by weights corresponding to the underlying level of self-determination
(Ryan & Connell, 1989). The formula for determining the W–SDI is as follows:
W–SDI = 3IM + 2INTEG + 1IDEN - 1INTRO - 2ER - 3AMO
AMO
ER
INTRO
In which individuals either lack the intention to act or act passively
Meaning an activity only to obtain a reward
The regulation of behaviour through self-worth contingencies (e.g.,
self-esteem, guilt)
Which refers to doing an activity because one identifies with its value
or meaning, and accepts it as one’s own
Refers to identifying with the value of an activity to the point that it
becomes part of the individual’s sense of self
In which an individual exercises and extends capacities for which he or
she has intrinsic interest in doing an activity.
IDEN
INTEG
IM
The range of possible scores on the W–SDI is between ± 36 for a 7-point Likert-type
scale. The total score derived from this formula reflects individuals’ relative level of
self-determination. A positive score indicates a self-determined profile (the individual
more likely acting (and reacting) positively toward the organisation and his or her
fellow co-workers) and a negative score indicates a non self-determined profile (the
individual more likely engaging in antisocial or organisational behaviours)
References
Test Statisticsa
MannWhitney U
Wilcoxon
W
Z
Intrinsic
motivatio
n
301.000
Integrated
regulation
303.000
Identified
regulation
362.000
Introjected
regulation
373.000
External
regulatio
n
311.500
Amotivatio
n
259.000
829.000
831.000
890.000
673.000
839.500
559.000
-1.433
-1.384
-.383
-.187
-1.253
.166
.702
.851
.210
Asymp.
.152
Sig. (2tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: Age
-2.130
W–
SDM
310.50
0
838.50
0
-1.225
W–
NSDM
352.00
0
652.00
0
-.535
W–
SDI
218.00
0
746.00
0
-2.754
.033
.220
.593
.006
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
37
APPENDIX F
Focus Group Discussions (conducted on October 8, 2014)
25 AND BELOW
Respondent # 1
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
My co-workers and boss and additional knowledge which I get from my day to day
responsibilities. I am motivated to work due to my co-workers and immediate
superior. I get along with them very well and I learn a lot from them. It helps me grow
as a person and it makes me feel satisfied with my current role.
Respondent # 2
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
Working environment and people I work with. I feel comfortable working here and
I like to staying where I am now.
Respondent # 3
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
Working environment and career advancement. If I am in a working environment
that I love, I tend to be more productive. Also, career advancement is one of the main
reason why I am motivated to go to work everyday. I look forward to the new things
that I will learn everyday. No one wants to be stagnant with the knowledge that they
already have.
Respondent # 4
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
I like the people that I work with here and the things I learn at the end of the day.
The working environment is also good here which in turn motivates me to keep going.
Respondent # 5
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
My passion for programming. It was a hobby then now at work proud ako sa aking
sarili dahil ginagamit ang firm ng mga ginawa ko (…I’m proud of myself because
the firm uses my output).
Respondent # 6
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
Salary and career challenge. Salary is the most obvious motivator since the more
efficient you work, the higher chances to get a raise. The other one is for the
challenge since I, for one, is someone who can get bored easily if there are no new
stuff to do.
ABOVE 25
Respondent # 7
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.
38
Salary and People I work with. Salary is important because I pay for my
responsibilities and provide for the family. I get to interact with people and I’m happy
to work with them.
Respondent # 8
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
The customer service aspect motivates me because, for me, it’s a basic human thing to
make people happy.
Respondent # 9
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
Good working environment because it puts fun in the workplace.
Respondent # 10
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
Competition motivates me to work because I like going through the process itself and
the money that comes with it.
Respondent # 11
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
Money because I need to work for everything I want.
Respondent # 12
What are the things that motivate you to work? Why?
Working atmosphere and the people themselves. I like interacting with my
coworkers, saying my views, gathering friends and enriching my social network.
©Rogelia Ma. Josefina D. Tiongson 2014. All rights reserved.