1 / 9100%
Employee performance
The study sought to establish the level of importance of employee performance to an
organisation. The findings are as illustrated in table
Table Employee performance
Key: SD Strongly Disagree, D Disagree, UD undecided, A agree, SA
Strongly Agree
Employee Performance SA
Improved employee
performance helps an
organization serve its customers
81 82 18 38 24 245 3.62
33.06 33.47 7.35 15.51 9.80 100 72.41
Better employee performance
saves an organization the cost of
recruiting new employees
87 94 21 29 14 245 3.86
35.51 38.37 8.57 11.84 5.71 100 77.22
Improving employee
performance makes an
organization efficient
79 98 31 24 13 245 3.84
32.25 40 12.65 9.80 5.31 100 76.82
Employee performance is high
when employees are motivated
87 128 4 26 0 245 4.13
35.51 52.24 1.63 10.61 0 100 82.53
Source: Field work (2014)
The study findings revealed that 82.53% (mean= 4.13) of the respondents strongly agreed
that Employee performance is high when employees are motivated, while 77.22%
(mean= 3.86) strongly agreed that better employee performance saves an organization the
cost of recruiting new employees. Furthermore, 76.82% (mean= 3.84) of the respondents
strongly agreed that Improving employee performance makes an organization efficient
and 72.41% (mean= 3.62) of the respondents strongly agreed that Improved employee
performance helps an organization serve its customers better.
These findings are in agreement with those of Boyens (2007) who argues that it is
important for the leader to know what motivates each individual. If unsure, find out by
asking the employees. The leader should get to know the employees as people before
getting to know them as employees. This knowledge will help the leader to recognize and
reward them individually. Capotondi (2002) states that the organizations responsibility is
to recruit, organize, reward, communicate and windup in a way that is functional. It is
crucial with adaptation for the company to be profitable. A leader needs to know his/her
employees and understand that not everyone is like-minded.
Regression Analysis Table
Regression model
Model Summary
Model R R Square
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .719
0.518 0.509 0.57509
a. Predictors: (Constant), D, A, C, B
Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square
1 Regression 84.429 4 21.107 63.82 .000
Residual 78.714 238 0.331
Total 163.144 242
a. Predictors: (Constant), Salaries, Promotion, Training, and Work environment
b. Dependent Variable: Employee performance
T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -0.527 0.358 -1.474 0.142
Salaries 0.294 0.062 0.214 4.733 0.000
Promotion 0.394 0.059 0.306 6.626 0.000
Training -0.091 0.063 -0.065 -1.433 0.153
0.779 0.064 0.564 12.192 0.000
a. Dependent Variable: Employee performance
Source: Field Work (2014)
There is significant relationship between salaries as an employee motivation factor and
Employee performance. This relationship can be explained by the fact that most people
seek jobs for financial gain and therefore better pay motivates them to keep working. The
aim of compensation is to attract competent employees, to retain them and to motivate
them to achieve the aims of the organization or employer. Some decades ago the
employee benefits were hardly considered to be part of the employee‟s compensation.
Benefits were privileges and not rights. Today it is the size and extent of the package that
is one of the contributory factors in deciding whether to join or exit the organization.
These findings concur with Studies conducted by Tetty (2005) have indicated that
dissatisfaction with salaries is a key factor undermining the commitment of academics to
their institutions and careers, and consequently their decision or intent to leave.
Therefore, this suggests that employers need to realize that if incentives and working
conditions are not are not improved and exit may become one of the options for them.
The employees will look for another job that is going to better their salaries. It is
unfortunate that the provincial health department is not in a position to determine
employee salaries as a result of this competency being centrally determined in the public
The Gallup Organization conducted an extensive study of 80,000 managers to analyse the
factors contributing to the quality of the workplace. The study finds that employee
satisfaction and job retention can be achieved through remuneration. Out of 12
dimensions employed in the survey, employee remuneration third. Urichuk (1999) argues
that employee turnover is due to a lack of proper employee remuneration and reward, and
points out that better remuneration helps in retaining the sincere employee and saves time
and money to recruit new people and it also encourages other workers to do a good job.
Hard to believe, yet motivation is achieved through better remuneration.
From regression analysis there is significant relationship between employee promotion as
a motivating factor and employee performance. Employee promotions and job
advancement is one of the most common reasons an employee gives for leaving an
organization, according to McCabe, Feiock, Clingermayer and Stream (2008). Employees
may change jobs for reasons of professional and personal advancement, or to join an
employer who provides more attractive pay packages as well as career growth.
These findings are in agreement with those of Duffy and Stark (2000) who reveal that
frustration and a desire to quit have relevance to low positive affectivity, and are related
strongly and negatively to job satisfaction. Commitment towards the organization is
degraded if there is a perception of underhanded methods in promotion activities.
Bayt.com shows that 51% of the people who completed their online survey expressed
dissatisfaction with their professional and personal growth in Saudi organizations. A
similar study conducted in another Arab culture concludes that employees demonstrate
greater levels of satisfaction and commitment if they are given ample opportunity for
personal as well as professional growth in their organization (Taylor, 2002).
From the regression analysis there is significant relationship between employee‟s
working environment as a motivating factor and employee performance. A widely
accepted assumption is that better workplace environment motivates employees and
produces better results. Office environment can be described in terms of physical and
behavioral components. These components can further be divided in the form of different
independent variables. An organization‟s physical environment and its design and layout
can influence employee behavior in the workplace. Brill (1992) estimates that
improvements in the physical design of the workplace may result in a 5-10 percent
increase in employee productivity. Hay Group (2007), contends that work environment
includes a friendly, well-designed, safe physical space, good equipment and effective
communication, which will improve productivity. Well-designed and organized offices
and work areas make significant differences to how people feel about their work.
Working environment can give some depressing messages about how much the
organization value employees and the standards it expects from them. An independent
study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, demonstrated that
physical work environment contributes a major factor affecting the decision of
employee‟s whether to stay or leave the job. Access to friendly and natural environment
helps to reduce job stress, depression and apprehension which are beneficial for health
environment as well.
These findings are similer to those of Stallworth and Kleiner (1996) who argue that
increasingly an organization‟s physical layout is designed around employee needs in
order to maximize productivity and satisfaction. They argue that innovative workplaces
can be developed to encourage the sharing of information and networking regardless to
job boundaries by allowing communication freely across departmental groups.
Extensive scientific research conducted by Roelofsen (2002) has also yielded indications
suggesting that improving working environment results in a reduction in a number of
complaints and absenteeism and an increase in productivity. The indoor environment has
the biggest influence on productivity in relation to job stress and job dissatisfaction. As
suggested by Govindarajulu (2004), in the twenty-first century, businesses are taking a
more strategic approach to environmental management to enhance their productivity
through improving the performance level of the employees. It is evident in the research
findings of Patterson et al., (2003) that the more satisfied workers are with their jobs the
better the company is likely to perform in terms of subsequent profitability and
particularly productivity.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource
Management Review, 3 (3), 185-201
Ansar, J., Cantor, P. & Sparks, R. W. (1997). Efficiency wages and the regulated firm.
Journal of Regulatory Economics, 11, 55-66
Baron, R. (2000). Personnel Management. New York: Dryden Publication.
Brass, D. J. (1981). Relationships, Job Characteristics, and Worker Satisfaction and
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly , 26 (3), 331-348.
Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G. & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in Extension(3rd
ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension.
Cassidy, T. & Lynn, R. (1989). A multi-factorial approach to achievement motivation:
The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 62, 301–312.
Crouse, N. (2005). Motivation Is an Inside Job: How to Really Get Your Employees to
Deliver the Results You Need. iUniverse.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology , 49. 14–23
Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and non contingent rewards and controls on
intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 8, 217-229.
Dockel, A. G. (2003). Management (3rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.
Drischel, K. (2005). Human Resource Management. New York: USA
Greenberg, P. (2003). Management (Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices) London: Pan
books Ltd.
Gbadamosi, G. and Moruf A. Adebakin (1996) “Organizational Behaviour” Lagos:
Pumark Nigeria Limited (Educational Publishers).
Greenhalgh , H and Bennet, R. (2005). Human Resource Management. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall
Hackmam , B. E., & Oldham, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education
faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2), 16-
Hitt, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M. & Gilbert, N. L. (1992). Foci and Bases of
Employee Commitment: Implications for Job Performance. The Academy of
Management Journal, 39 (2), 464-482.
Hongoro, O.A.M. (2006). Job satisfaction of professional librarians: A comparative
study technical and public service department in academic libraries in
Jordan. Dissertation Abstract International 46, 3179A.
Fargus, C.M. (2000). Job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Social Psychology
137 (5), 677-689.
Fox, W. (2007). Managing Organisational Behaviour. Chicago: Juta and Company Ltd.
Ott, H. (1989), “Classical Readings in Organizational Behaviour”, Pacific Grove, CA
Books/Cole Publishing Company
WHO, J. E. (2006). Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Aptitudes, Job Knowledge, and Job
Performance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 29, 340-362.
Gbadamosi J. E and Adebakin, R.F. (1996). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors
of Job Performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96 (1), 72-98.
Griffin, R. (2012). Management. Cengage Learning.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons
Jain, N. (2005). Organisational BehaviourVol. 2, Volume 2. Yorkshere: Atlantic
Publishers & Dist.
Keritner, R. (2004). Organizational behavior: Understanding and Prediction. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kombo, D. K. and Tromp, D.L.A (2006) Proposal and Thesis Writing: An introduction.
Nairobi: Pauline Publications Africa.
Koonz, H. (1990). Essential of Management. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Kostiuk, P. F. & Follmann, D. A. (1989). Learning Curves, Personal
Characteristics, and Job Performance. Journal of Labor
Economics, 7 (2).
Kirigia, K. A. (2006). What motivates employees? Workers and
supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65.
Koonz, H. (1990). Essential of management. new york: MC GRAW HILL.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C. & Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). The role
of job security in understanding the relationship between
employees’ perceptions of temporary workers and
employees’ performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90 (2), 389-398.
Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Compan Bishop,
H. (1989). The recognition and reward of employee
performance. Lauby, S. J. (2005). Motivating Employees. American Society
for Training and
Students also viewed