Research Method

The study undertaken by Dhanapal, Subramaniam, and Vashu (2013) utilised the use of 100 questionnaires through the means of a five Likert Scale on faculty members who worked in private institutions of higher learning within Klang Valley. The research was supposed to identify the measure of the level of satisfaction within intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The study also utilised the use of purposive sampling, t-Test and ANOVA to examine the relationships and identify the mean difference in the generations about the satisfaction of jobs and gender.

On the other hand, the study undertaken by Njambi (2014) employed the use of descriptive research design through interviewing participants from Amref Health Africa in Kenya. A number of research questions were asked to the participants in the study to unravel the factor that influences the motivation of employees in their workplaces and how they affect the performance of the employees in their place of work.

Torrent-Sellens, Velazco-Portocarrero, and Viñas-Bardolet (2016) employed the use of statistical survey figures obtained from the 2010 Quality of Working Life Survey, which was conducted by the Employment Ministry. The authors wanted to know more about the status of employment, the environment of the employee, the job mobility, satisfaction, work organisations, labour relations, compensation and job security. The study also examined the relationships of people at work, the emotional and physical conditions that may result in the job itself.


 Participants Involved and Type of Knowledge Workers

Dhanapal, Subramaniam and Vashu (2013) conducted the study on the faculty members who worked at a private institution of higher learning. The study population for the research was a total of 100 individuals who worked within Klang Valley as academicians.

Njambi (2014) studied a total of 412 employees who were the workers of the Amref Health Africa in Kenya. However, the sample size for this study was 96 total respondents. This team of 423 employees included three human resource managers, 30 administrations and procurement individuals, three communication individuals, 12 finance representatives, and 364 program representatives from the Firm.

Torrent-Sellens, Velazco-Portocarrero and Viñas-Bardolet (2016) examined a total of 6,499 individuals who were among the employed population in 2010. The study population was restricted to the ages of between 16 years to 65 years and the total of the sample studied comprised of individuals restricted by the age limits.

Ranking of each motivating factor

The following rankings are evident as the motivating factors and how they are ranked.

Achievement 20%
Advancement 19.7%
Autonomy 18.6%
Personal Growth 17%
Recognition 16.4%
Responsibility 8.4%


The ratings for these motivational factors shows that the different factors have a different impact on the individuals. According to Pinder (2014), different employees may be motivated by various factors depending upon their likes, behaviours and perspectives within the working environment. Moreover, according to Torrent-Sellens, J., Velazco-Portocarrero and Viñas-Bardolet (2016), the factors may vary also depending on the organisations in which the individual is working in.


Motivating factors are of vital importance, especially when regarding the satisfaction of employees. According to Cherian and Jacob (2013), motivation is helpful as it ensures that the employees perform well in their working environments. According to Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik and Škerlavaj (2014), when employees are achieving certain objectives, they feel more prominent, and hence their performance is improved in the workplace. Moreover, this motivation factor results in the individuals having more urge to work on the projects within a firm, and hence they improved performance (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg 2017). According to Cerasoli, Nicklin and Ford (2014), advancement of the employees in some areas ensures that the employee gains more responsibility, and hence they earn more. When the wages of these individuals are increased, then the performance rises too (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg 2017).

According to Cherian and Jacob (2013), autonomy provides the employees with the freedom to undertake most of their activities without the same being monitored. According to Csikszentmihalyi (2014), when the employees have the freedom, some of them improve regarding performance. Moreover, they can undertake activities without having to be monitored, and hence they work towards achieving the set objectives (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg 2017).

According to Tims, Bakker and Derks (2014), when the workers understand that they are gaining personal growth, they feel that they have achieved something from the period they have been employed. According to Hau, Kim, Lee, and Kim (2013), this fosters personal growth, thereby ensuring that the workers align their strategies and objectives towards working harder for them to achieve the aims of the company. Moreover, the employees gain confidence as they have improved on their growth and hence their performance, in turn, is also improved.

According to Bonenberger, Aikins, Akweongo and Wyss (2014), recognition is another key aspect that ensures the individuals improve in their workplace. According to Lazaroiu (2015), most of the workers feel like part of the organisation when they are recognised. Recognition instils the feeling of appreciation within employees thereby making them more productive towards actualization of firm’s set objectives (Bonenberger, et al. 2014).

According to Landy and Conte (2016), giving the workers certain responsibilities helps to ensure that they are not idle at work. Furthermore, it assists in ensuring that the workers obtain more skills and thus develop in their personal growth. According to Tims, Bakker and Derks (2014), this ensures that the individuals gain more experience, and hence they become more productive in their working. According to Kruglanski (2013), this, hence, improves the performance of the workers.

In this regard, it is important to ensure that the workers are fully motivated, as it will help to not only improve the performance of the organisation as a whole but will also ultimately lead to the proper functioning of the same. Organisational performance and the general performance is dependent on how well the individuals working in a given organization are motivated.  According to Landy and Conte (2016), the more the motivating factors that individuals receive, the more they become productive and consequently improving the organisational performance.





Bonenberger, M., Aikins, M., Akweongo, P., and Wyss, K. 2014. The effects of health worker motivation and job satisfaction on turnover intention in Ghana: a cross-sectional study. Human resources for health12(1), 43. From

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., and Ford, M. T. 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin140(4), 980. From

Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., and Škerlavaj, M. 2014. What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal57(1), 172-192. Obtained from

Cherian, J., and Jacob, J. 2013. Impact of self efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management8(14), 80.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2014. Intrinsic motivation and effective teaching. In Applications of flow in human development and education (pp. 173-187). Springer Netherlands.

Dhanapal, S., Subramaniam, T., and Vashu, D. 2013. Factors affecting job satisfaction among academicians: A comparative study between gender and generations. International Journal of Management Excellence2(1), 128-139. Obtained from

Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., and Kim, Y. G. 2013. The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information Management33(2), 356-366. From

Kruglanski, A. W. 2013. Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. Springer Science and Business Media.

Landy, F. J., and Conte, J. M. 2016. Work in the 21st Century, Binder Ready Version: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. John Wiley and Sons.

Lazaroiu, G. 2015. Employee Motivation and Job Performance. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations14, 97.

Njambi, C. 2014. Factors influencing employee motivation and its impact on Employee Performance: a case of AMREF health Africa in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University-Africa). Retrieved from

Torrent-Sellens, J., Velazco-Portocarrero, J., and Viñas-Bardolet, C. 2016. Knowledge-Based Work and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Spain. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-38.

Tims, M., B. Bakker, A., and Derks, D. 2014. Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy–performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology29(5), 490-507.

Pinder, C. C. 2014. Work motivation in organizational behavior. Psychology Press.

Wlodkowski, R. J., and Ginsberg, M. B. 2017. Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. John Wiley and Sons.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GWEXDDSRGCF10” for 10% discount