See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264439728

Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia

Article  in  International Journal of Management Practice · June 2010

DOI: 10.1504/IJMP.2010.033692

CITATIONS READS

2 488

2 authors, including:

Carol Hooi
University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus
59 PUBLICATIONS   705 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing global human capital View project

International Business School View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carol Hooi on 08 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2010 149

Motivational factors of shift workers in the

chemical industry in Malaysia

Lai Wan Hooi*

International Business School,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
UTM International Campus,
Jalan Semarak,
54100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: hooilw@ic.utm.my
*Corresponding author

Albert Sing Yong Su

Olympia College Kuantan 33,
Jalan Gambut 2,
25000 Kuantan,
Pahang Darul Makmur, Malaysia
Email: albert230405@yahoo.com

Abstract: The main objective of this research is to study the factors that
influence the work motivation of shift personnel. For this purpose, a primary
survey has been conducted to explore whether salary, bonus and remuneration
package of the company; perceived career progression within the organisation;
job enrichment and training opportunity as well as good working relationships
among superiors, peers and subordinates have an impact on the motivation of
shift staff. This research is important to most manufacturing companies as its
outcome may enable these companies to develop insights into how to recruit
and retain the best shift workers.

Keywords: motivation; chemical industry; shift workers; Malaysia,

management.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Hooi, L.W. and Su, A.S.Y.
(2010) ‘Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry
in Malaysia’, Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.149–168.

Biographical notes: Lai Wan Hooi is an Associate member of the Malaysian

Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (MAICSA). She is
currently attached to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, International Campus,
Kuala Lumpur. She completed her undergraduate studies at University of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, and postgraduate studies in Japan. She also has a
professional degree from the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and
Administrators, UK. In 2005, she was awarded the Japan Foundation Japanese
Study Fellowship and was attached at Osaka University, Japan, as a visiting
scholar for a year.

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

150 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

Albert Sing Yong Su graduated from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia with

Bachelor of Chemical Engineering in 1998. He began his professional career in
a national oil and gas company, and for more than ten years, held various
positions within the organisation. He obtained his Master’s degree in Business
Administration from Nottingham Trent University, UK, in 2003. From 2005
onwards, he started his part-time lecturing career at Olympia College, Kuantan.
In 2007, he was assigned an international task with overseas assignment project
to evaluate site efficiency of major chemical production sites in the Asia
Pacific region.

1 Introduction

Millions of people are employed as shift workers in a wide variety of industries including
oil, gas and chemical industries. Research has shown that there can be undesirable
consequences for those working shifts, particularly night and early morning shifts. Shift
work, first of all, is abnormal to human body’s natural biological functions. Poorly
designed shift work arrangements not only affect performance and work motivation, but
also result in fatigue, injuries and ill health. Conflicts at work are likely to be more
frequent among shift workers. Besides, shift workers are exposed to equipments that are
operating at high pressure and temperature most of the time. In addition, most chemicals
have sharp odour and are highly corrosive. Thus, workers have to compromise on their
health as these chemicals can be harmful, sometimes generating long-term effects.
Reducing the risks associated with shift work can improve the health and safety of
workers and may also financially benefit business and society, in general, by reducing
sickness, injuries and accidents, and by increasing work efficiency and product quality.
Though there is no single optimal shift system that suits everyone, a planned and
systematic approach to assessing and managing the risks of shift work can improve the
health and safety of workers.
As shift workers working in such a high-risk environment, the work can be very
demanding and stressful. Therefore, to keep shift workers consistently highly motivated
is crucial. This not only can protect company properties and plant equipment, but also
safeguard more profoundly the health of the individual shift workers as well as the
workplace, including the surrounding communities as a whole. The first step towards this
direction is to determine the factors that can motivate shift workers. Various factors such
as workload, the work activity, shift timing and duration, direction of rotation, the
number and length of breaks during and between shifts, and workplace environment
(the physical environment, management issues and employee welfare) are likely to affect
motivation of shift workers. For the purpose of this study, four areas that may keep shift
workers motivated at work will be explored, namely salary, bonus and remuneration
package; perceived career progression within the organisation; training opportunities
and job enrichment in day-to-day work; and finally, working relationships with staff’s
superiors, peers and subordinates.
The study is significant as many employees in the chemical industry not only have to
work on shifts, but also exposed to chemical hazards. Obviously, this would likely affect
the health and also the quality of family life. Thus, this research is considered timely as
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 151

health concerns of shift workers, divorce and juvenile delinquency is on the rise in recent
years. The particular company was selected for the study as there was increasing health
care cost and escalating turnover and absenteeism of shift workers. Is working in shifts
the contributing factor to such problems? If so, what are the factors that motivate shift
workers to stay on in the organisation despite the perilous nature of the job?
There is no doubt that shift workers need to be motivated. Understanding factors that
motivate shift workers in the organisation is likely to alleviate absenteeism and turnover
of shift workers. Regardless of whether workers rotate through shifts or remain on a
single shift, mental and physical health of shift work is important. Studies show that shift
workers tend to be more fatigued following a 12-hour shift when compared to an 8-hour
shift. The next question is what factors can motivate shift workers to remain committed
to the organisation. If a company knows what drives employees to work, it will be in a
better position to stimulate them to perform well (Kovach, 1987). Indubitably employees
are the best source of information for motivational problems, but the key is that managers
should avoid the assumption that what motivates them, motivates their employees as well
(Wessler, 1984). Often the likeliest motivational factors are things that employees value,
but lack (Wiley, 1997).

2 What motivates employees?

In today’s business world, motivation is the number one problem (Watson, 1994).
Understanding what motivates employees is essential to improving productivity and,
ultimately, to ensuring the success of the company. In the current era of change, motivated
employees are needed to help organisations survive (Smith, 1994). Motivated employees
are likely to be more productive, and thus managers need to understand what motivates
employees to remain competitive. As what motivates employees changes constantly
(Bowen and Radhakrishna, 1991; Wiley, 1997), motivating employees can be a challenging
task for managers. Nelson (2001) argues that what motivates employees differs and may
change for the same employee over time. For example, research suggests that interesting
work rather than money motivates older employees. According to Kovach (1987), as
employees’ income increases, money becomes less of a motivator. Innovative non-
monetary rewards like awarding plaques (Denton, 1999), paid vacations, time off from
work, favoured parking or gift certificates can be quite effective in encouraging employees
(Geller, 1991; Bragg, 2000). Similarly, Enander and Pannullo (1990) claim that awards
in the form of plaques, personal letters of commendation, publication of employees’
outstanding inputs towards improvement, recognition in the company’s newsletters and
merit certificates to individuals and teams have worked in motivating employees.
What then are the factors that motivate workers? Herzberg et al. (1959) state that if
motivators are present in a job, motivation will occur. Hersey and Blanchard (1969)
report that a survey carried out by the Labour Relations Institute of New York in 1946
shows that the most important motivating factor is appreciation of work done.
Similar studies carried out in 1980 (Kovach, 1980) and 1986 (Kovach, 1987) reveal that
interesting work is the main motivator. Thus, attitude towards work has shifted from
work as a means of survival to work as a means of enhancing self-development and self-
152 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

expression (Goddard, 1989). Wiley (1997) in a similar study carried out in 1992 contends
that good wages is the top motivator. Pfeffer et al. (1995) argue that people are motivated
by more than just money – things like recognition, security and fair treatment matter a
great deal. Dubinsky et al. (1993) claim that monetary compensation, recognition and
praise (Jeffries, 1997), job security, upward mobility potential, individual growth and a
sense of accomplishment are all important motivational facets of a job. Lindner (1998)
shows that interesting work, physiological, safety, social and esteem factors must first be
satisfied followed by good pay.1,2 However, what motivates employees differs given the
context in which the employee works, but interesting work seems to be the most
important motivational factor (Lindner, 1998).5 Harpaz (1990) argues that when work is
interesting and challenging, people are inspired to perform more than is obligated to
warrant their instrumental attainments. Therefore, organisations are faced with the task of
making work interesting for their employees or else run the possible risk of high labour
turnover.
Wiley (1997) finds that good wages and full appreciation of work done are important
motivating factors. Good wages is generally valued by all employees, regardless of gender,
occupation, age, income or employment status. Other factors include job security,
promotion, interesting work, company loyalty to employees, good working conditions,
tactful discipline, recognition and sympathetic help with personal problems. Hersey and
Blanchard (1969), in a study of industrial employees, rank full appreciation of work
done, feeling of being, sympathetic help with personal problems, job security and good
wages as the five top motivational factors out of ten factors. Ajang (2007) indicates that
job satisfaction, promotion and expectation, recognition, good salary and management
styles are the five most important factors. According to Quinn (1997), no single factor is
pre-eminently important when the ratings of 23 job-related factors were carried out.
In terms of age group, past research reveals that motivators differ among different
age groups. Harpaz (1990) maintains that job satisfaction was the most salient goal
across all age groups (30 years and under, 31–50 years and over 50 years), followed by
good pay. However, good pay was generally less important for manager, but more
important for employees of all ages. For all age groups, the ranking of the top five
motivational factors was almost similar, namely job satisfaction, good working conditions,
promotions/expectations, team spirit and recognition. Similarly, Wiley (1997) concludes
that there is not much difference in the ranking of motivational factors among the
different age groups. However, two age groups (20 years and under and 31 years and
above) ranked threats of layoffs much lower than the other ages. Hence, job security
seems to be an important motivator for those between 21 years and 30 years of age.
Kovach (1987) indicates that the top three motivators in the 30 years and under age group
are good wages, job security and promotion/expectation. On the contrary, Ajang (2007)
ranks job satisfaction, promotion/expectation and good working conditions as the first
three choices for the 30 years and under age group. These results, therefore, do not fully
support those reached by Kovach (1987).
Employment status, gender, income and occupation also have an effect on motivational
factors. Wiley (1997) asserts that part-timers placed considerably more emphasis on
interesting work and more value on good working conditions. On the contrary, full time
workers placed more value on personal loyalty to employees. Female employees placed
greater importance on appreciation for work done and good working conditions while
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 153

male workers emphasised more on interesting work. As far as different income groups
were concerned, the middle-incomers considered working conditions to be less important
than did the lower income group. The middle-incomers also placed less value on
understanding of personal problems as compared to those with lower income. Significant
differences were found between different occupational groups for interesting work, the
feeling of being in on things and a sympathetic understanding of personal problems.

3 Strategies for motivating shift workers

The ability to motivate subordinates is crucial to every manager. A motivated workforce

is a powerful tool to enhance the company’s bottom line. Early management theories
confirm that various strategies could be adopted to impel motivation and job performance.
Taylor’s scientific management theory suggests using financial compensation while
personality and learning theories in psychology creates organisational conditions that
matched need satisfaction with on-task efforts. Skinner’s operant learning and reinforcement
theory emphasises on behaviour modification techniques to enhance job performance.
Similarly, the reinforcement theory asserts that managers must understand the relationship
between behaviours and their consequences in order to arrange contingencies that would
encourage favourable outcomes. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory,
managers must consider employees’ needs in their motivation strategies.
Wiley (1997) suggests that the most successful method of motivating is to build
challenge and opportunity for achievement into the job itself. As employees are motivated
by their own inherent need to succeed at a challenging task, the role of the manager, then,
is to provide opportunities for people to be motivated to achieve. Wiley (1997) argues
that employee motivation could be strengthen by creating work environments that
promote a sense of achievement, the perception of competence and autonomy. People
with high achievement needs are motivated by challenging tasks that are attainable,
timely feedback and more responsibility for innovative assignments. Since an employee’s
conscious intentions direct their thoughts and actions (Locke, 1968), challenging tasks
are primary determinants of task-related motivation. Individuals with a high need for
achievement are more likely to select challenging tasks. Thus, management may redesign
jobs that enhance promotion and growth in the organisation. Similarly, effective design
of shift schedules that enhances productivity level and job satisfaction while maintaining
the health and safety of shift workers are likely to enhance motivation. Motivation is
further enhance if workers were given opportunities to communicate their goals and
expectations and are rewarded accordingly (Martinez, 1997). Herzberg (1987) asserts that
intrinsic elements of the job such as achievement, recognition and the work itself makes
up about 80% of the factors in satisfying job opportunities.
To enhance motivation of shift workers, management may consider granting greater
employee involvement and empowerment. By increasing employee involvement and
empowerment, workers are likely to be more committed to the job and experience lower
turnover (Jauch and Sekaran, 1978). Employee involvement reinforces employees’
confidence in their competence in the job and empowerment makes employees feel they
control their own actions (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Empowered employees are
154 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

motivated and committed to participate and engage in good practices (Cotton, 1993;
Wever and Vorhauer, 1993; Argyris, 1998), and no vision, no strategy can be achieved
without able and empowered employees (Argyris, 1998). The more employees feel
empowered, the more they want to be involved (Armstrong and Associates, 2002). Some
successful companies like Wal-Mart and Microsoft went a step further by encouraging
share ownership. People are normally motivated by share ownership as they act and think
like owners (Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999). The greater employee involvement is, the greater
is the sense of ownership (Mintzberg, 1994a; Mintzberg, 1994b; Mintzberg, 1994c;
Dell’Agnese, 2001; Mintzberg, 2001a; Mintzberg, 2001b; Pfeffer, 2001a; Pfeffer, 2001b;
Piggott, 1997). Leveraging performance-based rewards, line of sight where workers
understand their contribution to the bottom line, and involvement would enhance
ownership behaviour and motivation.
Appreciation for work done being one of the top motivating factors of employee
performance (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969; Koch, 1990; Stuart, 1992) confirms that
employees are motivated by feedback and recognition for the work they do. Research
shows that employees value verbal feedback from supervisors as much as formal rewards
(Ramus, 2001). Both informal verbal feedback and formal written feedback may help
motivate employees. The need to feel appreciated is deeply ingrained in all employees
(Wiley, 1997). Employees expect appreciation from supervisors, colleagues and even
their families for their effort (Miller, 1991). Jeffries (1997) affirms that some employees
are more motivated by recognition and praise than other factors and would do their best if
their input was recognised. Often, praise beats out monetary rewards (Kohn, 1993).
Praising employees help develop a positive self-concept and it meets employees’ needs
for esteem, self-actualisation, growth and achievement (Lussier, 1997). Thus, it is
imperative that managers are able to express gratitude for a job well done.
Praise and giving credit for their work is probably the most powerful, yet least costly
and most underused, motivation tool. The point is to describe the desire behaviour in
specific terms, to explain why the behaviour was helpful and actually to express thanks
(Cherrington, 1992). Managers must realise that appreciation for a job well done can
have positive motivational effects for all employees (Levesque, 1987). Unfortunately,
research shows that employers seldom acknowledge appreciation for employees’ work;
and even if they do, it is done rather inadequately. While more than 80% of supervisors
claim that they frequently express appreciation to their subordinates, less than 20% of the
subordinates state that their superiors express gratitude more than occasionally (Wiley,
1997). Therefore, workplace visits by top executives to high-performance employees,
personal handwritten notes of thanks accompanying pay cheques and telephone calls by
top executives to employees at home (Knippen and Green, 1990; Steele, 1992) may be
necessary. However, according to Hallowell (1999) and Smith and Faley (2001),
technological changes have made a lot of face-to-face interaction unnecessary. It is
imperative, therefore, for managers to check the corrosion of the human moment – an
authentic psychological encounter that can only occur when two people share the same
physical space.
Companies may show its appreciation by providing employees opportunities for
growth and development. Education and training can enhance workers’ motivation and
help some shift workers to learn how to cope better with new shift system (Tepas, 1993).
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 155

Flexible work scheduling, internal promotion policy, recognition and rewards (Lawler,
1973; Laabs, 1992; Patton and Daley, 1998) are likely to motivate workers to strive
harder for the company. Flexible work scheduling provides opportunities for workers to
acquire more skills and knowledge through training and further education. In Malaysia,
especially it is the norm for workers to go for self-development at their own initiative.
Thus, if companies could lend their support in providing grants and study leave,
motivation of workers are likely to improve. Promotion from within provides not
only opportunities for cross-training but also the prospect of progressing within the
organisation. Recognition and rewards is an added incentive as they strengthen a
company’s image as a caring employer in enhancing employees’ professional development
(Dawson and Dawson, 1990).
As in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, managers may also influence job
performance by appealing to an employee’s unfulfilled needs. Though organisations were
doing an adequate job of satisfying the basic needs of the workers, they were not doing a
good job of satisfying their ego or self-fulfilment needs (Kovach, 1987). Thus, interesting
work and full appreciation for work done were top motivators. However, with increasing
global competition, organisational transformations, takeovers and downsizing, motivational
factors shift to good wages and job security as the environment placed many workers in a
position of insecurity and uncertainty. As employees may consider good wages to be
solid feedback concerning their work as well as a reward for their ability and
competence, it may lead to greater intrinsic motivation (Wiersma, 1992). Sometimes it is
not the reward itself that motivates, but rather the type of feedback implied by the
reward. If good wages increases intrinsic motivation, then developing more effective
incentive programmes may be part of the solution for those employees (Denton, 1991;
Wiley, 1997). An effective compensation programme would boost employees’ personal
and professional self-esteem if public recognition were associated with monetary
compensation (Dawson and Dawson, 1990). It also contributes positively to overall
employee morale and productivity if job security were properly incorporated into the
company’s compensation programme. However, managers have to bear in mind that a
‘one programme fits all’ approach is unlikely to work. Different employees are motivated
by different factors, and thus, a reward system that satisfies everybody is more workable.
Therefore, it is better for managers to customise compensation packages that would
motivate each employee (Barrier, 1996; Geller, 1991).
An organisational culture where the work of all employees is valued and rewarded
may also enhance the motivation of workers. For this, top management may have to set
aside signals of status in the organisation. Reserved parking, special dining rooms, the
size of office space or dress (Pfeffer et al., 1995; Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999; Hawkins,
2000; Smith and Rupp, 2002) are signals of status. Reduction of status differences is
ultimately necessary to elicit high levels of cooperation and commitment among workers.
Employees may be excited and proud to be part of the team and this may produce
sustainable competitive advantage for the organisation. In addition, the level of
compensation based on ability and responsibility should be structured to avoid dividing
the workforce into the haves and have-nots.
156 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

4 Methodology

4.1 Site and subjects

The study was carried out in the natural environment of a multinational chemical
manufacturing organisation with minimum interference by the researcher. The MNC for
the study is given the fictitious name of GM Chemical Corporation (GMCC). Eight shift
workers from each of the selected production shifts were randomly selected by the shift
leaders to participate in the survey. Questionnaires were used as the primary means of
data collection. The population is all the shift workers working with the organisation.
However, due to resource constraints, it is not viable to seek the response from the entire
population and therefore a sample of the population is considered.

4.2 Procedure
The research process involved both the collection of primary and secondary data. The
study began with a literature review of books, as well as articles in journals related to the
research topic. Internet, company records, newspaper articles, handbooks and magazines
were other sources of secondary data. Secondary data gathered through literature review
and opinions of various writers offered an in-depth understanding of the study.
Observations and interviews with various people were undertaken to develop a better
understanding of the phenomena before viable theoretical frameworks were developed.
These were then tested through questionnaire surveys. Prior to finalising the survey
questionnaires, a pilot survey was conducted to test whether the questions were
ambiguous to the respondents. Actions were also taken to ensure that respondents did not
suffer from discomfort, embarrassment or loss of privacy.
The survey questionnaires were distributed to employees through the shift leaders of
participating production shifts. There were 20 statements in the questionnaires. A total of
64 questionnaires were distributed to selected production shifts. Each shift received eight
questionnaires. First, questionnaires were distributed to all shift leaders personally.
Explanations on the theme, the purpose, general outline, method and details of this study
were given to them face-to-face. It took about two weeks to explain extensively to all
shift leaders. Then, from time to time, constant touch was kept with the shift leaders to
ascertain that the filling up of the questionnaires was in constructive progress. One to two
weeks were given to shift workers to complete the questionnaires. Finally, the completed
questionnaires were collected from the shift leaders to be analysed and tabulated. Out
of the 64 questionnaires given, 60 were returned to the researcher within two weeks.
This constitutes about 93.8% of response rate. The results from those 60 completed
questionnaires were then compiled, analysed and presented.

4.3 Measures
Two types of variables were measured. The first sought the demographic data of the
respondents. The demographic data of the respondents cover academic qualifications,
years of working experience in related field and age. The second assessed perceptual
responses to the questions used to gauge the motivational factors of shift workers in the
company.
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 157

4.4 Analysis
The data collected from the questionnaire were analysed in three stages. The first stage
involved the analysis of the demographic data of the respondents. Descriptive statistics
were used. Means and frequencies were calculated for each of the questions to
understand the shift workers’ agreement with the factors than would enhance motivation.
Based on the interpretation of the results, conclusions were drawn. From this outcome,
recommendations were made.

5 Results

GMCC is one of the Malaysia’s largest leading chemical companies. It is a joint venture
between a foreign-owned chemical company and Malaysia’s state-owned petroleum
corporation. There are about 1000 employees in this organisation, of which about 40%
are shift workers working in 12-hour shift cycle from 6:45 AM (PM) to 6:45 PM (AM).
In each production plant, there are four shifts operating for 24 hours daily with three
levels of shift workers, namely the Senior Executives (shift leaders), the Executives and
the Non executives. Each shift has about six to ten personnel with one to three workers at
the executive level. They work for three day-shifts, off for two days and then work for
two night-shifts. This is followed by three rest days, two day-shifts and then two days
off. The highest level to go on shifts is the supervisor.
Demographic data of the respondents show that there are two distinct categories of
shift leaders (shift supervisors and deputy shift supervisors) and shift workers in the
company. The first category of shift leaders are academically more qualified and has at
least an engineering degree. The second category of shift leaders are those without
tertiary education, but relatively more working experience in the industry. These shift
leaders progressed steadily over the years and are at the senior executive level. Shift
workers in the company can be classified as either executives or non-executives. All shift
workers were promoted to the executive level based on merit and years of working
experience. These workers moved up progressively on passing the requirements in the
Technician Development Program (TDP). However, TDP is not the sole criterion for
promotion. The recommendations by their immediate superiors as well as their superiors’
superior, especially in the yearly performance appraisals, do carry significant weight.
This is to ensure that those promoted do not have major misconducts or consistent
disciplinary problems. Thus, the highest academic qualification of shift workers at the
executive level is the same as those at the non-executive level.
The non-executive shift workers in the company are categorised as Technicians III,
Technicians II and Technicians I. Shift workers that are categorised as Technicians I are
the highest level of non-executives shift personnel. The minimum academic qualification
for all non-executives shift workers is a pass in their Form Five (secondary/high school)
public examinations, and must have undergone training in a recognised technical training
institution. At the technical training institutions, these potential shift workers are
equipped with hands-on specialised technical skills in fields such as plant operation,
mechanical, electrical and instrumentation. Regardless of their levels in the hierarchy,
many of these shift workers take up part-time courses to upgrade themselves academically
158 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

on recruitment. One of the motivating factors for this trend is the encouraging academic
incentive policy of the company. Any employee who successfully completes pre-
approved courses will be reimbursed a lump sum of money. The company subsidises
50% of the cost of the course up to a maximum of RM10,000. Cost includes fees and
study materials, such as modules and books. No bond is attached to the education grant
and workers are free to leave the organisation after finishing their studies.
As far as years of related working experience is concerned, a total of three to
five years of working experience is sufficient for employees with an engineering degree
to be entrusted as a shift leader. However, more than ten years of working experience in a
similar industry is necessary for shift leaders without tertiary academic qualifications.
Shift workers at the executive level in general have five to seven years of working
experience. Some are promoted from within the company, having served under the non-
executive positions for at least five years. Others were recruited as executive shift
workers as they have at least seven years of working experience in the chemical industry,
with about two years at a similar capacity. Most non-executive shift workers do not have
much working experience prior to joining the organisation. The company normally takes
in fresh graduates as Technician III from the technical training institutions. These shift
workers then progress gradually from Technician III to Technician II and then further to
Technician I. Career advancement for non-executive shift workers does not depend on
the availability of vacancy and there is no time frame to complete the syllabus for each
level of the Technician Development Program.3 An average Technician III is expected to
complete all those modules within two to three years. However, progression from
Technicians I to the executives level depends on the availability of vacancy, in addition
to the completion of TDP syllabus.
In analysing the age of the sample and the population, shift leaders with tertiary
academic qualification and less working experience are relatively younger as compared
to shift leaders without tertiary academic qualification, but have been working in the
industry for many years. As executive shift workers are normally promoted from within
the non-executive shift workers, they are more elderly compared to the non-executive
shift workers. Thus, depending on the shift leaders’ academic qualifications, it is not
uncommon for elderly executive shift workers reporting to younger shift leaders, who
have less working experience. The non-executive shift workers are relatively young as
they were in their early twenties when they were freshly employed.4
The findings of the questionnaire reveal that most of the respondents agree that
attractive salary, bonus and other remuneration package; perceived career progression
within the organisation; job enrichment and training opportunities in day-to-day shift
work; and good working relationships with superiors, peers and subordinates are
significant factors that keep shift workers motivated. The majority of the respondents
(70%) strongly agree that salary, bonus and remuneration package are of prime
importance to keep the shift workers motivated and perform at the highest level.
According to the respondents, the remuneration package is of utmost importance (80%),
followed by salary scheme (73.3%) and bonus (68.4%). Looking at the satisfaction level
of the respondents with the salary and remuneration package of the company, about 20%
of the respondents seem to be satisfied, while about 40% unsatisfied. This is probably
attributed to the fact that though the salary is slightly above the industrial average, the
total remuneration package is not among the best in the chemical industry.
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 159

On whether perceived career progression within the organisation would motivate

shift workers to remain at work, 86.6% of the respondents agree that they will be highly
motivated to work if they know that they have good future career opportunity in
the organisation. At the same time, only 33.4% of the respondents agree that career
development planned by the company does not affect their motivation. The majority of
the respondents indicate that they must be enlightened on their possible career path
within the organisation to stay motivated. They would be demotivated if awareness
regarding their future career plan in the organisation is unclear. Nonetheless, 43.4% of
the respondents would consider building their long-term career with the organisation.
Potential career opportunities in the organisation have likely motivated the shift workers
to remain committed to the organisation. As some companies have indefinitely placed
their expansion plan on hold, the company’s recruitment drive has attracted a substantial
number of experienced workers in the industry. Over the years, some of these workers
have progressed rapidly within the organisation. To a certain extent, these workers are
contented as it is unlikely that they would have moved up the corporate ladder had they
remained in the previous company.
As for the impact of job enrichment and training opportunities in day-to-day shift
work on the motivation of shift workers, the majority of the respondents (85%) agree that
motivation level will be enhanced if there are a lot of learning opportunities during
day-to-day shift work. In addition, 55% of the respondents state that they will feel
demotivated if there are few challenges in their work. Also, more than half of the
respondents (53.4%) disagree that their motivation level remains the same regardless of
the nature of work. As 63.4% of the respondents show that they gain many learning
experiences and exposures in the organisation, either through day-to-day work or through
external training and development, it is likely that there exists a positive learning culture
in GMCC. However, this is only possible if the shift workers adopt a learning attitude
and take the initiative to learn beyond their job scope.5 The fact that 96.7% of the
respondents, including 81.7% who strongly agree, indicate that they like to attend
training shows that job enrichment and training opportunities in day-to-day shift work do
enhance the motivation of shift workers.
Good working relationships with superiors, peers and subordinates seem to be a
significant factor that keeps shift workers motivated. The results show that 95% of the
shift workers are motivated if they have a good relationship with their superiors and that
solid teamwork and good cooperation within the shift will make working more enjoyable
and enhances performance. Similarly, 70% of the respondents felt demotivated if
subordinates do not respect or have faith in them. Thus, shift workers are more concerned
in having cordial relationships with their superiors than with their subordinates.
However, motivation level is not affected by the relationships within the shift as 61.7%
of the respondents contend that performance would not be affected by a bad working
experience within the shift. Good working relationship with superiors, peers and
subordinates is, therefore, a significant factor that keeps shift workers motivated.
Generally, 68.4% of the shift workers have a happy working relationship with their
superiors, peers and subordinates. Table 1 summarises the results of the study.
 160

Table 1

Strongly agree (%) Agree (%) Neutral (%) Disagree (%) Strongly disagree (%)
An organisation’s salary scheme has significant influence on my
73.3 15.0 11.7 0.0 0.0
motivation.
Bonus reward policy does motivate shift workers to perform. 68.4 13.3 3.3 3.3 11.7
For shift workers, remuneration package, such as shift allowance,
80.0 13.3 5.0 1.7 0.0
has important impact on work performance.
Salary, bonus and remuneration package of the company towards
3.3 5.0 6.7 15.0 70.0
shift personnel has no effect on my level of motivation.
L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

I am convinced that the salary scheme and the entire remuneration

package of GMCC is on par with other chemical companies of 8.3 11.7 41.7 13.3 25.0
similar scale.
Summary of questionnaire results

If I can see my career progression opportunity in the company I am

66.6 20.0 11.7 0.0 1.7
working for, I will be highly motivated to work.
Shift workers may feel demotivated if awareness regarding their
73.3 16.7 6.7 3.3 0.0
future career plan in the organisation is unclear.
Career development programme planned for me by the company
16.7 16.7 13.3 20.0 33.3
does not affect me at all in my work motivation.
To keep shift workers motivated, they must be enlightened on their
53.3 30.0 11.7 5.0 0.0
possible career paths within the organisation.
For me, GMCC is an established and trustworthy organisation to
21.7 21.7 35.0 10.0 11.6
build my long-term career.
If there are a lot of learning opportunities during my day-to-day
66.7 18.3 15.0 0.0 0.0
shift work, my motivation level will be enhanced.
I will be very demotivated if my work is just routine – no fresh
31.7 23.3 25.0 11.7 8.3
challenge anymore in my day-to-day work.
 Table 1

Strongly agree (%) Agree (%) Neutral (%) Disagree (%) Strongly disagree (%)
I like to attend training for knowledge enrichment – training enables
81.7 15.0 0.0 3.3 0.0
me to ‘recharge my batteries’ and becomes motivated again in my work.
My motivation level remains the same no matter whether my work is
5.0 8.3 33.3 21.7 31.7
boring or full of ups and downs.
I gain many learning experiences and exposures in GMCC, either through
26.7 36.7 28.3 8.3 0.0
my day-to-day work or through external training and development.
I believe that good relationship with my superiors is an important factor
73.3 21.7 1.7 3.3 0.0
that keeps me motivated in my job.
Assuming my subordinates do not show respect for me and do not have
51.7 18.3 23.3 5.0 1.7
faith in my leaderships, I will feel demotivated.
Summary of questionnaire results (continued)

As a whole in GMCC, I am happy with my working relationships with

28.3 40.1 23.3 8.3 0.0
my superiors, peers and subordinates.
Assuming I had a bad working experience within the shift, I am still able
18.3 43.4 13.3 16.7 8.3
to be highly motivated to perform to the best of my abilities.
Solid teamwork and good cooperation within the shift will make working
78.3 16.7 3.3 1.7 0.0
more enjoyable and this effectively enhances performance.
Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia
161
162 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

6 Discussion

The results of the survey show that though salary, bonus and the remuneration package
have a significant impact on work performance, the remuneration package seems to be a
more important factor in motivating shift workers to perform. Bonus reward does not
motivate shift workers to perform as much as the salary scheme of the organisation. This
is consistent with the findings of other research that good wage is an important
motivation factor (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969; Wiley, 1997; Seek Intelligence, 2006;
Ajang, 2007). One of the probable reasons for this is that the remuneration package of
shift workers, such as the shift allowance, is very specific to a targeted group. The
remuneration package is reflective of the company’s appreciation of the shift workers
and it has considerably motivated those working in shifts. On the contrary, the salary
scheme of the company does not convincingly show the management’s appreciation of
shift workers. As most organisations have a common salary scheme for both shift and
non-shift workers, shift workers prefer the remuneration package which caters for their
needs in terms of shift allowance. Also, it would not be easy to change the whole salary
structure. Shift workers do not pay as much emphasis on bonuses, compared to
remuneration package and salary scheme, as bonus reward is subject mainly to business
performance of the company. In short, shift workers may not have a direct control on the
distribution of bonus.
Generally, shift workers are motivated if they are optimistic about career development
opportunity within the organisation. Ajang (2007) shows that promotions and expectations
ranked second among the ten motivating factors.6 From a list of 13 factors, Seek
Intelligence (2006) contends that career development is the fourth most important factor
to jobseekers when looking for a job while salary ranks second.7 This is especially so for
those under 25 years of age. Though 86.6% of the respondents agree that if they know
that they have good future career opportunity in the organisation, they will be highly
motivated to work, about one-third (33.4%) of the respondents contends that career
development planned by the company does not affect their motivation. This is probably
due to the fact that most employees do not intend to stay on in the same organisation
throughout their career. Being a developing country, new projects and companies provide
opportunities for talented workers to progress rapidly, and perhaps, better financial
reward through job hopping. As such, workers, including shift staff, do not care much
about long-term career development plans for them. Most workers would try and gain as
much knowledge and experience as they can when with the company, and are likely to
leave when better opportunities arise. As this trend is detrimental to the organisation,
it is instrumental that companies take proactive measures to retain talent workers.
Nonetheless, slightly less than half of the respondents (43.4%) are considering building
their career with the organisation though there is huge potential for career development
for every employee.
As the majority of the respondents (96.7%) like to attend training, it can be said that
job enrichment and training opportunities in day-to-day shift work do motivate shift
workers. Only 13.3% of the respondents state that their motivation level remains the
same even if work is boring. Training reduces boredom from routine work and enables
shift workers to acquire new knowledge. Training increases the confidence of shift
workers in their work and this helps boost their motivation. Even if the training is not
directly relevant to their work, socialising and networking during training refreshes their
mind and improves work morale. Besides, attending training is one of the few official
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 163

occasions when shift workers are leading a normal working hours. Shift workers who do
not like attending training are normally those who have reached their respective career
plateau, and do not see the need to go for further training. Even though leaves-in-lieu are
provided by the company, many do not want their off days to be occupied by official
duties.
As more than half of the shift workers (55%) will feel demotivated if their work has
no challenge and disagree (53.4%) that their motivation level maintains regardless of the
nature of work, it shows that most of the shift workers (85%) will be highly motivated if
their work is challenging. This is consistent with the findings of other researchers in the
field. Kovach (1987), Harpaz (1990) and Lindner (1998) find interesting work as the top
motivating factor for employees. On the contrary, unchallenging work with little new
learning opportunities will demotivate only 55% of the shift workers. As in Herzberg’s
motivation theory, though more than 85% of the shift workers would be motivated if
their jobs are ‘interesting’, only 55% of them will be demotivated if their jobs are no
longer interesting, and not 85%. Thus, simply removing challenging work does not
necessarily demotivate shift workers as much as increasing challenging work motivates
them.
Shift workers are also able to gain many learning experiences and exposures in the
organisation. One of the main reasons is because the company is still young, and almost
all the shift workers are responsible to commission and start up the plant from scratch.
Every phase is a learning experience as challenges have to be overcome. Indeed, the first
few years are full of ups and downs – offering a huge amount of learning experience, and
in general, uplifting the motivation level of shift personnel. When the plant has been
started up successfully, the next challenge is to maintain consistent high production with
on-specifications products. Then, it is the optimisation stage, which means, with the same
outputs, inputs, and thus, waste generation should be minimised. When these are
achieved, the subsequent direction is to look into all operational aspects to cut production
cost in order to remain competitive in the market. These processes offer learning
opportunities and experience for all shift workers. It is likely that exposure would be
restricted once plant operations reach saturation limits. Motivating shift workers then
may be an uphill task.
As in most organisations in general, shift workers in GMCC seem to be more
concerned in building a good relationship with their superiors than with their
subordinates. Obviously, this is crucial as the shift workers are assessed twice a year by
their superiors under the performance management system of the company. During the
year-end appraisals, the superiors will determine the competency ratings and these
ratings will affect the shift workers annual bonus and yearly increment. Moreover,
superiors may recommend their staff to the higher management for promotions should a
vacant position arise.8 Thus, having a good relationship with one’s superior does more
good than harm. Another probable reason is that most of the respondents do not have
direct reports under them. Regardless of whether they are executives or non-executives,
shift workers focus on having good working relationships with superiors to keep
motivated. However, though solid teamwork and good cooperation within the shift do
enhance motivation to work, most of their motivation level is not affected by the
relationships within the shift.
164 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

7 Conclusion

A main general conclusion drawn from the study is that salary, bonus and remuneration
package; perceived career progression within the organisation; training opportunities and
job enrichment in day-to-day work; and working relationships with staff’s superiors,
peers and subordinates appear to be important links to higher motivation of GMCCs
employees. However, all these factors seem to be of equal importance as the respondents
do not seem to have any inclination or declination to a particular factor. Thus,
management may consider other options such as job enlargement as well as monetary
and non-monetary compensation. By increasing the number and variety of activities
performed, job enlargement has the potential to make work more interesting. Employees
are likely to feel motivated if monetary compensation is provided for accepting this
responsibility. In short, the key to motivate employees is to know what motivates them
and designing a motivation programme based on those needs. It should be noted that
the effectiveness of an organisation is dependent upon the motivation of its employees
(Buford, 1990; Smith, 1990; Chesney, 1992). It is imperative, therefore, that management
at GMCC understands what motivates employees in order to recruit, train and retain a
productive workforce. To enhance motivation, both managers and employees have to
work together (Buford, 1993). Employees at GMCC need to let management know what
motivates them; management at GMCC must be willing to design reward systems that
motivate employees. An in-depth knowledge of the motivators will help management
draw up well-designed reward systems that would enhance employees’ motivation.
It is further recommended that in order to enhance the motivation of shift personnel,
the company’s salary scheme and bonus reward should be on par with other chemical
companies of a similar scale. The remuneration package for shift personnel, such as shift
allowance, should truly portray the company’s recognition and appreciation towards the
sacrifices and contributions of the shift staff. In addition, the company should enlighten
the shift personnel on their possible career paths within the organisation. Shift staff
must be aware of their future career progression opportunities. More importantly, shift
workers’ job scope should be formulated in such a way that it provides challenges as well
as training opportunities, not just routine and monotonous chores. This is in line with
past research that confirms interesting work as the top motivating factor (Kovach, 1987;
Harpaz, 1990; Lindner, 1998). Systematic and periodic external training programmes
should be established for all shift staff so that they have the chance to refresh their mind
and recharge their batteries. Finally, the company should ascertain that harmonious
relationships exist within the shifts among the superiors, peers and the subordinates.

References
Ajang, P.E. (2007) Assessing the Role of Work Motivation on Employee Performance, Thesis,
Umea School of Business and Economics, Umea. Available online at: www.diva-
portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_umu_diva-1249-2__fulltext.pdf (accessed on
12 December 2008).
Argyris, C. (1998) ‘Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76,
No. 3, pp.98–105.
Armstrong, R.V. and Associates (2002) Available online at: www.rvamstrong.com (accessed on
10 December 2008).
Barrier, M. (1996, September) ‘Improving worker performance’, Managing, pp.29–31.
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 165

Bowen, B.E. and Radhakrishna, R.B. (1991) ‘Job satisfaction of agricultural education faculty: a
constant phenomena’, Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.16–22.
Bragg, T. (2000, October) ‘How to effectively reward and inspire your team’, Occupational
Hazards, pp.131–134.
Buford, J.A. Jr. (1990) ‘Extension management in the information age’, Journal of Extension,
Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.227–263.
Buford, J.A. Jr. (1993) ‘Be your own boss’, Journal of Extension, Vol. 31, No. 1.
Cherrington, D.J. (1992, April) ‘Follow-through on award programmes’, HR Magazine, Vol. 37,
No.4, pp.2–55.
Chesney, C.E. (1992) ‘Work force 2000: is extension agriculture ready?’, Journal of Extension,
Vol. 30, No. 2.
Cotton, J.L. (1993, April) Employee Involvement, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Dawson, K.M. and Dawson, S.N. (1990) ‘How to motivate your employees’, HR Magazine,
Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.78–80.
Dell’Agnese, V. (2001) ‘Performance-based rewards, line-of-sight foster ownership behavior in
staff’, Canadian HR Reporter, Vol. 14, No. 17, p.10.
Denton, D.K. (1991, September/October) ‘What’s wrong with these employees?’, Business
Horizons, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.45–49.
Denton, D.K. (1999, October) ‘Employee involvement, pollution control, and pieces to the puzzle’,
Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.105–111.
Dubinsky, A.J., Jolson, M.A., Michaels, R.E., Kotabe, M. and Lim, C.U. (1993) ‘Perceptions of
motivational components: salesmen and saleswomen revisited’, Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.25–37.
Enander, R.T. and Pannullo, D. (1990, July/August) ‘Employee improvement and pollution
prevention’, Journal for Quality and Participation, pp.50–53.
Geller, S. (1991, December) ‘Safety first’, Incentive, pp.59–61.
Goddard, R.W. (1989, April) ‘How to reward the ‘80s employee’, Public Management, Vol. 71,
pp.7–10.
Hallowell, E.M. (1999) ‘The human moment at work’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 1,
pp.58–66.
Harpaz, I. (1990) ‘The importance of work goals: an international perspective’, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.75–93.
Hawkins, J. (2000) ‘Employee loyalty’, Executive Excellence, Vol. 17, No. 10, p.18.
Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. (1969) Management of Organisational Behaviour, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Herzberg, F. (1987) ‘Workers’ needs: the same around the world’, Industry Week, 21 September,
pp.29–30, 32.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959) The Motivation to Work, John Wiley,
New York.
Jauch, L.R. and Sekaran, U. (1978) ‘Employee orientation and job satisfaction among professional
employees in hospitals’, Journal of Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.43–56.
Jeffries, R. (1997) ‘Reaping the rewards of recognition’, HR Focus, Vol. 74, p.9.
Knippen, J.T. and Green, T.B. (1990) ‘Reinforcing the right behaviour’, Supervisory Management,
Vol. 35, No. 4, p.7.
Koch, J. (1990) ‘Perpetual thanks: its assets’, Personnel Journal, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp.72–73.
166 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

Kohn, A. (1993, September/October) ‘Why incentive plans cannot work’, Harvard Business
Review, pp.77–78.
Kovach, K.A. (1980) ‘Why motivational theories don’t work’, SAM Advanced Management
Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.54–59.
Kovach, K.A. (1987) ‘What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different
answers’, Business Horizons, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.58–65.
Laabs, J.J. (1992, August) ‘The greening of HR’, Personnel Journal, pp.60–71.
Lawler, E. III. (1973) Motivation in Work Organizations, Brooks/Cole Publishing, Monterey, CA.
Levesque, P. (1987) ‘Employee motivation: a little recognition goes a long way’, Industrial
Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.35–37.
Lindner, J.R. (1998) ‘Understanding employee motivation’, Journal of Extension, Vol. 36, No. 3,
pp.1–8.
Locke, E.A. (1968) ‘Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives’, Organizational Behaviour
and Human Performance, Vol. 3, pp.157–189.
Lussier, R.N. (1997, August) Management, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Martinez, M.N. (1997) ‘Rewards given the right way’, HR Magazine, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.109–116.
Miller, C. (1991) ‘How to construct programs for teams’, Training, pp.4–7.
Mintzberg, H. (1994a) ‘The fall and rise of strategic planning’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72,
No. 1, pp.107–114.
Mintzberg, H. (1994b) ‘Rethinking strategic planning. Part I: Pitfalls and fallacies’, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.12–21.
Mintzberg, H. (1994c) ‘Rethinking strategic planning. Part II: New roles for planners’, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.22–30.
Mintzberg, H. (2001a) ‘The yin and yang of managing’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 4,
pp.306–312.
Mintzberg, H. (2001b) ‘Managing exceptionally’, Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 6,
pp.759–771.
Nelson, B. (2001) Motivate employees with intangible benefits. Available online at:
http://www.findarticles.com (accessed on 10 December 2008).
Patton, K.R. and Daley, D.M. (1998) ‘Gainsharing in Zebulon: what do workers want?’, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 27, No.1, pp.117–131.
Pfeffer, J. (2001a) ‘Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health’,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.248–259.
Pfeffer, J. (2001b) ‘What’s wrong with management practices in Silicon valley? A lot’, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.101–102.
Pfeffer, J. and Veiga, J.F. (1999) ‘Putting people first for organizational success’, The Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.37–48.
Pfeffer, J., Veiga, J.F., Hatano, T. and Santalainen, T. (1995) ‘Producing sustainable competitive
advantage through the effective management of people’, The Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.55–62.
Piggott, S.E. (1997) ‘Internet commerce and knowledge management – the next mega trends’,
Business Information Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.169–172.
Quinn, J.F. (1997) Retirement Trends and Patterns in the 1990s: The End of an Era?, Boston
College Working Papers in Economics 385, Boston College Department of Economics.
Ramus, C.A. (2001) ‘Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas for
environmental sustainability’, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.85–105.
 Motivational factors of shift workers in the chemical industry in Malaysia 167

Seek Intelligence (2006) Survey of employee satisfaction and motivation in Australia. Available
online at: www.seek.com.au/investor/docs/esm_aus06.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2008).
Smith, G.P. (1994) ‘Motivation’, in Tracey, W.R. (Ed.): Human Resources Management and
Development Handbook, 2nd ed.
Smith, K.L. (1990) ‘The future of leaders in Extension’, Journal of Extension, Vol. 28, No. 1.
Available online at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/fut1.html (accessed on 15 November
2008).
Smith, A.D. and Faley, R.A. (2001) ‘E-mail workplace privacy issues in an information and
knowledge-based environment’, Southern Business Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.8–22.
Smith, A.D. and Rupp, W.T. (2002) ‘Communication and loyalty among knowledge workers:
a resource of the firm theory view’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp. 250–261.
Steele, R.A. (1992, October) ‘Awards energize a suggestion programme’, Personnel Journal,
Vol. 71, No. 10, pp.96–99.
Stuart, P. (1992) ‘Fresh ideas energize reward programmes’, Personnel Journal, Vol. 71, No. 1,
pp.102–103.
Tepas, D.I. (1993) ‘Educational programs for shift workers, their families, and prospective shift
workers’, Ergonomics, Vol. 36, pp.199–210.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990) ‘Cognitive elements of empowerment: an “interpretive”
model of intrinsic task motivation’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4,
pp.666–681.
Wessler, R.L. (1984, May) ‘The psychology of motivation’, Marketing Communications,
pp.29–32.
Wever, G.H. and Vorhauer, G.F. (1993) ‘Kodak’s framework and assessment tool for
implementing TQEM’, Total Quality Environmental Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.19–30.
Wiersma, U.J. (1992, June) ‘The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: a
meta-analysis’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 2,
pp.101–114.
Wiley, C. (1997) ‘What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys’,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.263–280.

Notes
1 Lindner (1998) ranked order the motivating factors as interesting work, good wages, full
appreciation of work done, job security, good working conditions, promotions and growth in
the organisation, feeling of being in on things, personal loyalty to employees, tactful discipline
and sympathetic help with personal problems.
2 Kovach (1987) ranked order motivational factors as interesting work, full appreciation of
work done and feeling of being in on things while Harpaz (1990) ranked order motivational
factors as interesting work, good wages and job security.
3 TDP consists of a syllabus that each category of technicians must complete before they can be
considered for promotion. For example, the syllabus for Technician III comprises about
40 modules. Those modules cover a comprehensive range of topics, such as safety, plant
operation, process technology, mechanical, instrumentation, laboratory, electrical, product
handling, emergency response and so forth. Under TDP too, mentors will be assigned to these
technicians to guide them. Officially, mentors are the shift leaders, but they can delegate this
task to the executives.
 168 L.W. Hooi and A.S.Y. Su

4 They join the institutions after Form Five in the secondary schools at about 17–18 years of
age. Then, they undergo another about three years in the technical training institutions.
Assuming that they stay at each technician level for 2.5 years, they would be about 30 years
old by the time they could be promoted to the executive level as young, inexperience and
average-performing technicians spend about six to eight years as non-executive shift workers.
5 When a new recruit reports for duty, undeniably, everyday is a training opportunity. But, on
mastering routine work, day-to-day shift work is no longer considered training.
6 Hersey and Blanchard (1969) ranked promotions/expectations in seventh place. While Kovach
(1987), Wiley (1997) and Lindner (1998) all ranked this same factor in the sixth, fourth and
fifth places, respectively. On average, this factor was ranked sixth between 1946 and 1992 as
reported in Wiley (1997).
7 In the mining, oil and gas industry, the top three important factors are quality of management,
salary, and benefits and conditions.
8 Both Kovach (1987) and Lindner (1998) assert that full appreciation of work done is one of
the important motivators. This factor was ranked second and third, respectively, in both the
studies.

View publication stats