FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES

Department of Business and Economic Studies

The Influence of Motivation Factors on Employee’s

Performance.

A Quantitative study using SDT & Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Authors:
Nahla Al Darwish & Hira Shafqat

2023

Student thesis, Master Degree (One Year), 15 Credits

Business Administration

Master Program in Business Administration (MBA): Business Management 60 Credits

Master Thesis in Business Administration, 15 Credits

Supervisor: Vincent Fremont

Examiner: Aihie Osarenkhoe

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We, Nahla Al Darwish and Hira Shafqat would like to express our gratitude to our
thesis advisor, Vincent Fremont. Throughout our research journey his invaluable
guidance, patience and expert advice have been truly remarkable. We are grateful for
his support and the insightful feedback he provided which played a role in shaping the
outcome of our thesis.

We would also like to extend thanks to our families who have been our pillars of
strength. Their understanding and sacrifices during this study period have been a source
of motivation for us.

Our friends deserve appreciation for being for us in numerous ways. From engaging in
brainstorming sessions to offering support during times their contributions have been
truly invaluable.

Additionally, we acknowledge the support and encouragement from our peers and
supervisors who provided us with an environment to learn and inspiration. Their
constructive criticism and valuable suggestions played a role in refining our work.

Completing this master’s thesis within a span of two months was both challenging and
enriching. This accomplishment was made possible by the support and unwavering
belief shown by our friends, family members and mentors.

"We are incredibly thankful, to all those who contributed to this journey, whether
indirectly and aided us in transforming our dreams into a tangible reality."

Thank you.!
Abstract:
In the dynamic landscape of contemporary organizations, the complex interplay
between motivation and employee performance creates a complex tapestry that shapes
the path of success. Scholars recognize the important role of motivation in driving and
promoting employee performance, yet a comprehensive understanding of the complex
ways in which these values are embedded within the organization is lacking. There has
been some research on the relationship between employee performance and motivation.
The definition of motivation and two well-known theories of motivation are covered in
this essay. A comprehensive examination of the literature is done to investigate the
connection between motivation factors and employee performance. It has been
discovered that employees' dedication to their work is influenced by both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation factors. The study explores the impact of motivation factors in
organizational performance. A quantitative study based on Sweden Stockholm. Our
findings show that motivation factors contribute significantly to employee performance
and effectiveness. The quantitative method includes administering a wide range survey
with employees working in Stockholm, Sweden to collect data on their motivation level
and its impact on overall employee performance.

Keywords: motivation, Organizational performance, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation,

Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Motivation Hygiene (Two Factor) Theory.
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 2
1.3 Purpose of the Study: ........................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 3
1.5 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 4
2. Theoritical framewrok and hypothesis development: ............................................. 4
2.1 literature review .................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Motivation-Hygiene (Two-Factor) Theory: ....................................................... 8
2.2.1 Overview of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory: ................................................. 8
2.2.2 Impact and Application of motivation-hygiene theory in various sectors: ..... 9
2.2.3 Evolution and Influence in Organizational Paradigm: .................................. 10
2.2.4 Application to Employee performance and Organizational Strategies: ....... 10
2.2.5 Classification of motivation-hygiene theory: ............................................ 10
2.3 Self-Determination Theory (SDT)..................................................................... 13
2.3.1 SDT Theory of Motivation ............................................................................. 13
2.3.2 Three basic Psychological needs of motivation ............................................ 15
3. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16
3.1 Research approach and design: ........................................................................ 17
3.2 Selection of Respondents: .................................................................................. 17
3.3 Data Collection Through Survey: ..................................................................... 18
3.3.1 Designing and Implementing the Survey: ..................................................... 18
3.3.2 Rationale Behind Survey Design: ................................................................. 19
3.4 Data Analysis: ..................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Data Validity and Reliability:............................................................................ 22
3.6 Ethical Considerations: ...................................................................................... 22
4. Empirical Findings: .................................................................................................. 23
4.1 Reliability of Measurements using Cronbach's Alpha: .................................. 23
4.2 Demographic Characteristics Frequencies: ..................................................... 24
5. Analysis: .................................................................................................................... 31
5.1 Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 31
5.2 ANOVA Analysis: ............................................................................................... 34
5.2.1 Educational Level and Motivational Factors ................................................. 34
5.2.2 Job Experience and Motivational Factors ..................................................... 37
5.2.3 sum of Education and job experience Anova tables ...................................... 40
5.3 Correlation Analysis ........................................................................................... 41
5.4 Hypothesis test .................................................................................................... 43
6. Conclusion and Future Work .................................................................................. 46
6.1 Answering the research Questions. ................................................................... 47
6.2 Key Insights and Findings ................................................................................. 48
6.3 Practical Implications: ....................................................................................... 50
6.4 Study Constraints: .............................................................................................. 50
6.6 Future Directions for Research ......................................................................... 51
9. Appendix A: survey Questions. ............................................................................... 63
9.Appendix A: survey Responses ................................................................................ 68

Table of Contents is created by the menu References if you use Word. Make sure you
1. Introduction

In this chapter, an in-depth examination of the background, problems, and research

gaps, objective, research questions, and objective of the study is provided, which serves
as a foundation for initiating the research.

1.1 Background
Employee motivation is an important step that every business must take to achieve
favorable outcomes and enhance employee performance (Muthuswamy & sharma
2022). Today, employee motivation is more of a concern. Managers can not personally
motivate their employees. They can only create conditions that lead to a reaction or
change. Today's managers must take their employees feel as they work with them, not
for them (Muthuswamy & Sharma 2022).Organizations must re-evaluate how they
evaluate employee performance due to rapid changes in today's environment, especially
in terms of technology and creativity in new products and services (Acakh, D. 2014). To
achieve organizational goals, employee performance is considered important (Acakh, D.
2014, Fahriana, C. 2022). The favorable outcomes of a business depend on the
motivation and performance of their employees (Singh, D. 2023). The performance of
employees is determined by their potential, creativity, knowledge, environment, and
motivation. In the words of Acakh (2014), performance is the degree to which a worker
completes his work. Performance, along with work-related activities completed, is often
used to judge workers' work outcomes (Rachman, M. 2022). Sustaining motivation is a
procedure that, when integrated, motivates, sustains, and guides a person's performance
in the supervision of an organization's goal (Acakh, D. 2014).

This action manages performance while required or conducted and closed when the goal
is attained. Motivation is key for employee performance (Ekundayo, O. 2018, Acakh,
D. 2014). Term Motivation has been used throughout the study. Poor motivation leads
to inadequate workflow and can, in the end, source the business to faint (Singh, D.
2023).

Motivation elements such as intrinsic and extrinsic have the capability to influence
employee performance (Acakh, D. (2014), Ndudi, F. et al., (2023), Fahriana, C. 2022).
The most widely used theory to estimate motivation in employee performance or
welfare in organizations is self-determination theory and Motivation Hygiene Theory

1
(Manganeli, L. et al., 2018, Shaikh, S. & Shaikh, H. 2019). As stated by Manganeli
(2018), SDT recommends that employees meet different sorts of motivation regarding
their work.

SDT has been a popular framework for the measurement of human motivation for many
years (Huang et al., 2019). The theory examines the motivation in expression of
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and how it is affected by the three
psychological needs; according to Huang et al. (2019), relatedness, competence, and
autonomy. A number of studies have also recommended that motivational factors can
enhance employee performance (Ekundayo, O. 2018; Uju, S. 2013; Kuswati, Y. 2020;
Fahriana, C. 2022). Therefore, the study supposes that motivation expands employees'
performance. Although the next and the final theory, the motivation hygiene theory
(Herzberg, 1959), will be important to learn if they are in the hands of best results in
terms of motivational factors and its effects on employees' performance (Aburumman,
2017). Herzberg's theory classifies the elements that influence job contentment into
hygiene and motivational factors. Motivational factors aim to motivate employees by
developing a sense of duty and responsibility.

1.2 Problem Statement

Employee motivation should be high enough to drive the performance of the

organization(Muthuswamy & Sharma 2022). For many years, researchers have focused
on the issue of motivation because of its understandable impact on increasing employee
performance. Choosing the right financial and moral reason motivates employees to
perform at their best, as a result expanding the chances of organizations achieving their
desired goals. The topic of employee performance has also been of interest for a long
time(Muthuswamy & Sharma 2022).
Businesses all over the world that view their people as the vital component of their
business and consistently raise the level of employee motivation have been shown to be
more productive and successful (My Linh, 2017). As per Team Stage (2020), a mere
15% of workers globally express motivation. Only 15% of workers feel engaged at
work, according to a Gallup research, which suggests that there is a motivational crisis
facing the global workforce. Furthermore, data on employee engagement shows that, in
Europe, only 10% of workers are motivated at work, compared to 33% in the US. The
UK's employee motivation data, which show a consistent decline over time and a low of

2
8%, are even more concerning (Team Stage, 2020). Since motivation is key for an
employee's performance (Mgalu, A. 2017).
Numerous studies have been overseen on motivation, which include its consequences
on motivation on employees' success (Zamir, Ali, Nasir and Amir 2014), organizational
performance (Emeka, Amaka and Ejime, 2015), organizational effectiveness (Manzoor,
2012) motivation on employee efficiency (Choudhary & Sharma, 2012), but impact of
both motivational factors (intrinsic and extrinsic) on employees performance has not
been analyzed very well. Geelmaale (2019), Ekundayo (2018), Tamam, M. & Sopiah
(2022) are some recent studies in which not much is known about the effects of
motivational factors in employees' performance. There are some restraints that need to
be overcome, and the variables used include both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Hence, this study has been undertaken to fill this gap. This work would enhance
employee performance by exploring motivational factors and their impact on employees
performance.

1.3 Purpose of the Study:

Employee performance depends on either intrinsic or extrinsic factors of motivation.
However, this study focuses specifically on employee motivation as it has a significant
impact on performance. Employee motivation is a key policy for managers to improve
job performance among employees in organizations (Shadare et al, 2009). Accordingly,
motivation fosters a productive attitude at work, easy adaptability to changes, and
increased innovation from an organizational standpoint (Muse Ali Geelmaale, 2019).
This study focuses on one objective; to shed light on how motivation factors (intrinsic-
extrinsic) influence the performance of individuals within Sweden Stockholm region. It
aims to explore areas by identifying and explaining the motivation factors that have a
significant impact on organizational performance. This investigation seeks to
understand which factor has a more significant impact on employees' performance in
organizations.

1.4 Research Questions

The research question is formulated in the conditions of two popular theories in the area
of motivation. motivation-hygiene Two-Factor Theory and Self-Determination Theory,
which provide a comprehensive and important viewpoint for our study. To effectively
explore this complex inquiry, the study poses this question:

3
RQ: Which motivation factor (intrinsic or extrinsic) has a significant influence on
employee performance?

1.5 Scope
The effect of motivational factors on employee performance is the main center of this
study, which is established in the Swedish working community who lives in Sweden,
Stockholm region. Moreover, a quantitative study will be conducted through
questionnaires, which will be distributed online through emails to employees working in
Stockholm, Sweden. Although the greater part of respondents will come from
Stockholm Sweden, there is no barring from other regions. The center will be on those
who are working in different organizations and also have knowledge of work
motivation.

2. Theoritical framewrok and hypothesis development:

2.1 literature review
Employee performance:

Employee performance is an organizational environment that is the height of all the

capabilities, efforts, and skills of employees that help the company reach its goals
through increased productivity (Dahkoul, 2018). Employee performance is also affected
by their intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction levels (Dahkoul, 2018). Chepngetich
(2021) explains employee performance as the standard to which a worker performs his
assigned responsibilities and duties. It speaks to their production efficiency, capacity,
and productivity. Evaluation of an employee's value to the company is also determined
by their performance (Chepngetich, 2021). To increase employee performance,
organizations invest in training their staff to be competitive (Elegido, 2013). Employee
performance is affected by both his work experience and abilities because unskilled
workers with work experience perform worse than skilled workers (Peretti & Igalens,
2015).

Motivation:

The word "motive" is to report a person's needs, wants, and desires, which is what
drives motivation (Sharma, D. 2016). Motivation can be explained as the intellectual
and internal condition of employees to perform jobs or ventures in order to satisfy
needs, wants, expectations, and aspirations (Dr. Islam, N. 1999). Motivation is

4
concerned with the active change within the individual who conducts his motives to
ensure the attainment of a set goal. So, the solution to understanding the procedure of
motivation is found in understanding the relationship between needs, drives, and
incentives (Edun, T. & Adenuga, O.A. 2011). According to Hitka, M. (2019),
Motivation is a psychological process that drives and supports people's behavior in
relation to jobs, duties, or projects. As one of the important factors of management,
motivation is associated with the productivity of workers. Therefore, managers and
other leaders need a detailed understanding of how motivation increases productivity
(Aquino, P. 2021). Additionally, the study of the amount of effort, commitment, and
change a company gives to its employees is the same as employee motivation (Rachman
et al., 2022).

Intrinsic motivation:

Intrinsic motivation is managed by feelings from within (Nanyombi, F. 2018). It

incorporates any project or process that is being done for the intrinsic benefit or
recognition. Additionally, intrinsic motivation is what individuals do without extrinsic
motivation (Nanyombi, F. 2018). Furthermore, doing a task out of a greater preference
for its intrinsic accomplishment rather than an expectation of a particular outcome is
known as an intrinsic drive. It includes people who engage in an activity because they
find it engaging and derive a natural sense of fulfillment from it. It refers to an
individual's intrinsic motivation, which may include among other things, feelings of
achievement, self-esteem, and recognition (Ndudi, F. et al., 2023). There are people
who are self-motivated and reward them, not the primary reasons for their work,
because intrinsic motivation is usually subjective in nature and is related to employees'
perceptions of work and reactions occurring and more importantly, guiding principles
(Chepngetich, 2021). Intrinsic motivation focuses on elements within the individual that
are based on personal needs (Engidaw, A. 2021).

Intrinsic motivation in employee performance:

Positive emotional reactions derive from intrinsic motivation, which motivates workers
to make lasting behavioral adjustments when necessary (Ryan & Dacey, 2020).
Employees' level of achievement and satisfaction with the company is significantly
affected by the level of intrinsic motivation they experience (Tymon Jr. et al., 2010).
Stumpf et al. (2013), attentive on increasing programs with intrinsic motivation and
decreasing employee dissatisfaction. The results of their study show a positive
5
relationship between happiness and intrinsic motivation in companies. Furthermore,
they looked at the relationship between intrinsic motivation and satisfaction, and their
results showed that intrinsic rewards improve worker's performance (Musqueira et al.,
2020; Bardoud et al., 2016).

Based on the above, we hypothesized that:

H1: Intrinsic motivation has a positive and significant influence on employee

performance.

Extrinsic motivation:

It deals with the external elements that employees must deal with, and that are, for the
most part, noticeable. In Chepngetich, 2021, organizations deal with financial
motivation and other material awards when they want employees to complete a task
(Engidaw, A. 2021). Motivational language is an expression used to report extrinsic
rewards (Engidaw, A. 2021). Organizations must execute intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
plans to operate more effectively and deliver superior goods. Define motivation
(intrinsic, extrinsic) by determining whether motivation influences and relates to job
performance. Extrinsic motivation is the motivation a person has before taking action to
correct a disparity. Extrinsic motivation comes from origins other than the person or
people motivated and may be in the form of winning, such as promotions, wages,
salaries, and well-being (Fahriana, C. & Sopiah 2022).

Extrinsic motivation in employee performance:

Some studies outline the notable impact of extrinsic motivation on employees'

performance Cannizzaro, D. et al. (2017); Rahman, K. et al., (2017); & Rafiq, M.
(2012). The author declares that all extrinsic factors increase employees' motivation,
which eventually has a positive effect on employees' performance in productivity.
According to Alderfer, C. (1969), extrinsic factors contribute an important role in
increasing employee performance. Additionally, explained by Stella, O. (2008)
explained that excessive motivation and high performance for a successful organization
can be achieved through a few variables such as work environment, work
correspondence, management, and employment stability.

Based on the above, we hypothesized that:

6
H2: Extrinsic motivation has a positive and significant influence on employee
performance.

Motivation in Employee performance:

Motivational theorists such as McClelland (1988), Herzberg (1968), and Maslow (1946)
have proposed specific actions that managers take to help subordinates realize their own
worth because satisfied employees who demonstrate their creativity are more inclined to
implement. They recognize that meeting employees' emotional needs improves
performance by fostering a healthy work environment, contributing financial security,
giving employees the opportunity to engage with one another, and recognising their
achievements. Motivation is a force that enables a person to be towards a particular goal
(Ryan & Dacey, 2000). Motivators have satisfaction, high performance, and willingness
to employ effort (Rachman et al., 2020). This means that any increase in employees'
motivation to work will increase their performance. Anggapradja & Wijaya (2017);
Sugiarto & Putta (2020) explain that the main effect of motivation on employee
performance is perceived by management to support and develop motivation.
Management care and increased employee motivation are associated with positive
effects of motivation on workers' performance (Sugiarto & Putra 2020).

Furthermore, extrinsic motivation influences performance quantity, whereas intrinsic

motivation influences performance quality. As per Cerasoli et al. (2014), intrinsic
motivation is a significant predictor of performance.

Based on the above, we made this hypothesis:

H3: There is a positive and significant impact of overall motivation on employee

performance.

7
 Figure: Conceptual framework

2.2 Motivation-Hygiene (Two-Factor) Theory:

2.2.1 Overview of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory:
Frederick Herzberg along with Mausner and Snyderman in 1959 introduced the Two
Factor Theory, also known as the motivation hygiene theory. According to this theory
job satisfaction is influenced by two sets of factors; motivation factors and hygiene
factors. Motivation factors include achievement, recognition, the nature of the work
itself, responsibility, opportunities for advancement and growth. These factors fulfill
needs. Contribute to positive attitudes towards work. On the other hand, hygiene factors
encompass company policies, relationships with supervisors, working conditions and
salary. Although less important to satisfaction, these external factors can lead to
dissatisfaction if they are not met. The theory suggests that motivational factors lead to
satisfaction by satisfying an individual's self-enhancement needs, while hygiene factors
satisfy the desire to avoid situations. This theory has been commonly applied in
research on job satisfaction in all fields, including nursing. This emphasizes that
motivational factors influence satisfaction more than hygiene factors. Job satisfaction
can be achieved by recognizing and addressing these factors within organizations. A
positive work environment can be fostered (Syptak, 1999). According to Frederick
Herzberg introduced the known motivation hygiene Two-Factor theory in (1959) which
is widely accepted. The theory was formulated based on feedback collected from 200
engineers and accountants in the US related to their work experiences.

8
Herzberg identified two types of factors that influence an employee's performance and
attitudes towards work.

This passage explores Robbins research from 2009 on the relationship between hygiene
and motivational factors. Intrinsic factors play a role in enhancing employee motivation.
Addressing hygiene factors, which are elements that can prevent job dissatisfaction.
However job satisfaction is influenced by both hygiene factors and other aspects.
According to Herzberg simply having all hygiene factors does not guarantee employee
satisfaction. To improve employees performance or productivity it is crucial to address
the motivating factors.

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory, known as the Motivation Hygiene Theory holds
importance when it comes to understanding job satisfaction (Dion, 2006). It primarily
focuses on two categories of factors that impact satisfaction; motivators and hygiene
factors. Motivators such as achievement or recognition drive attitudes whereas hygiene
factors such as company policies or work conditions address dissatisfaction (Herzberg,
1966; Herzberg, 2003). This theory gained prominence in 1959 through Herzberg,
Mausner and Snydermans model which was inspired by Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
They hypothesized two sets of factors that influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
(Stello, 2011).

2.2.2 Impact and Application of motivation-hygiene theory in various

sectors:

This theory has particularly influenced the fields of health care (Timmreck, 2001;
Cahill, 2011) and research on tend satisfaction (Best & Thurston 2004; Kacel et al.,
2005; Rambur et al., 2005; Lephalala, 2006; Hegney et al., 2006; ; Russell & Gelder,
2008; Mitchell, 2009; Jones, 2011; Mc Glynn et al., 2012). Herzberg's theory separates
motivation from hygiene factors and asserts that motivation contributes to satisfaction
while the absence of hygiene factors inhibits dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959).
However, it is important to note that just because someone is dissatisfied does not
necessarily mean that they are satisfied. This emphasizes the importance of considering
both factors (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, 2003). This theory influenced our
understanding of motivation by distinguishing between extrinsic motivation (Herzberg
et al. 1959). It works with content theories such as Vroom's Expectancy Theory
(Vroom, 1964) and process theories that examine how internal factors shape
performance (Locke at al., 1981). It has also influenced leadership theories by
9
examining the effects of management styles on groups (McGregor, 1960; Fiedler, 1978;
House, 1971; Hersey & Blanchard 1993) and by contributing to reward and
performance systems (Fama & Jensen 1983; Eisenhardt, 1989; Gerhart, 1990; Barney,
1991).

2.2.3 Evolution and Influence in Organizational Paradigm:

The evaluation of this theory is consistent with the changing patterns of age-focused to
service-oriented approaches in organizations. It highlights the importance of
improvement, teamwork, and empowerment (Peters & Waterman 1982; Clutterbuck &
Goldsmith 1984). However, it also highlights how a narrow focus on Taylorism led to
crises such as Enron's scandals (Herzberg et al., 1959). A new performance view found
by Bandura in '77 and Rotter in '75 emphasizes the effect of action on performance.

2.2.4 Application to Employee performance and Organizational Strategies:

According to a study by Syptak in 1999 employee satisfaction and retention have

always been concerns for employers. All high rates of absenteeism and employee
turnover can have an impact on the company's financials due to the costs associated
with temporary workers, recruitment and training. However, it seems that not many
organizations prioritize job satisfaction as their focus. Perhaps they have overlooked the
potential that lies in addressing this aspect (Syptak, 1999). When applied to
performance the two-factor theory emphasizes the significance of both internal factors
in shaping employee attitudes and performance s. It suggests that providing hygiene
factors like compensation, job security and favorable working conditions can prevent
employee dissatisfaction. Conversely the presence of motivators such as opportunities
for achievement, recognition and personal growth can enhance employee motivation
and job satisfaction. By comprehending the connection between hygiene factors and
motivators organizations can develop reward systems and performance management
strategies aligned with employees’ needs while also meeting objectives. This approach
facilitates a work environment while nurturing levels of employee motivation and
commitment.

2.2.5 Classification of motivation-hygiene theory:

In (Brenner et al., 1971) article they review Herzberg's theory, which was developed in
the 1950s and involved interviews conducted by Frederick Herzberg with a group of

10
workers. The aim was to identify the factors that brought them satisfaction or
dissatisfaction in their jobs. He asked two sets of questions to the employees.
Based on the interviews conducted by Herzberg he developed a theory that job
satisfaction can be classified into two main components: motivation and hygiene
factors.

Hygiene factors: According to Herzberg addressing hygiene issues can reduce

employee dissatisfaction even if it doesn't directly inspire them. In terms of
dissatisfaction arises when these factors are absent or not properly handled. Hygiene
factors encompass aspects such as rules and regulations, supervision, payment, social
relationships and the work environment – all of which are related to the employees’
working conditions.
hygiene factors are related to the work environment, including aspects like salary, job
security, working conditions and company policies.

Motivations factors: On the other hand, motivators contribute to happiness by

fulfilling individuals' needs for growth and significance. Some examples of motivators
include achievements, recognition, job fulfillment, responsibility and advancement.
Herzberg believes that once the basic needs are fulfilled motivators further enhance job
satisfaction and increase productivity.
Motivator factors are related to the nature of the work itself such as achieving goals,
receiving recognition for accomplishments and having opportunities for growth and
development.

Hygiene issues (dissatisfiers) Motivators (satisfiers)

Company and administrative policies Work itself

Supervision Achievement

Salary Recognition

Interpersonal relations Responsibility

Working conditions Advancement

Figure 1: Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction (Source: Adapted from Spytak,
Marsland & Ulmer, 1999).
11
According to (Syptak, 1999) Herzberg proposed that employee satisfaction is
determined by these two sets of factors; hygiene factors and motivators. He explained
that after addressing hygiene concerns or dissatisfiers it is the motivators or satisfiers
that generate employee satisfaction.

To elaborate further:
1- Issues (dissatisfiers) encompass company policies and administrative procedures.
2-Motivators (satisfiers) involve the work itself, achievement opportunities, recognition
for accomplishments and responsibility in tasks assigned.

Herzberg's two factor theory (Motivation-hygiene) is a known motivation theory

extensively used in business management. It revolves around two components;
motivation and hygiene. The motivation factors aim to inspire employees by fostering a
sense of accomplishment and responsibility.

On the other hand , hygiene factors are vital in maintaining employee satisfaction within
the workplace; they include aspects like salary levels and working conditions.
The existence or nonexistence of these factors can have an impact on how motivated
and engaged employees are. Different combinations of these factors can influence the
level of job satisfaction among employees.

Motivation-hygiene Two Factor Theory has played a role in shaping theories and
frameworks in the field of human resource development. For instance it has been
utilized to design programs that enrich jobs with the aim of boosting employee
motivation and job satisfaction by offering growth opportunities. Moreover, this theory
has also affected the design of theories such as self-determination theory and goal
setting theory. Additionally, it has influenced the development of frameworks such as
the job features model and the job demand control model.

Further research held by Locke and Henne (1986) George and Brief (1996) and Bagozzi
et al. (2003) delved further into the dynamics of motivation. The evolving field of
motivation studies highlights the significance of aligning objectives with the needs of
employees thereby establishing well designed systems that foster high levels of
motivation. Despite its enduring importance Herzberg's theory has been criticized for
neglecting motivators and relying excessively on rewards (Herzberg et al. 1959).

Herzberg's two factor theory proposes that motivation and job satisfaction in the
workplace are influenced by two types of factors: hygiene factors and motivators.
12
Hygiene factors refer to elements that when lacking or insufficient can cause
dissatisfaction while motivators are factors that when present can lead to satisfaction
and motivation.

2.3 Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

A macro theory of human motivation Self-determination theory stretches diverse
empires such as education, parenting, sports, healthcare, and management (Ryan &
Deci, 2017). It emphasizes that the types of motivation directly affect well-being and
performance.

2.3.1 SDT Theory of Motivation

SDT, as a motivational theory, identifies what motivates and guides people's

performance, as well as how it manages their performance in different ways of their
lives. SDT description centers on the psychological level (more willingly than the social
or physical levels), by that means using human perception, emotions, and needs as
forecaster of regulatory performance, developmental and experiential results. Because it
is made up of a number of "mini-theories" that combine to form a complete knowledge
of human motivation and functioning, it is called a meta-theory. The basic belief of
SDT is that people are naturally and voluntarily inclined toward self-organization and
self-development. Stated differently, people combine new experiences, develop their
own needs, goals, and interests, and connect with others and the outside world in an
attempt to grow and understand themselves (Lisa Legault, 2017). The relationship
between organizational motivation and the twin concerns of performance and well-
being has been inspected by SDT. It focuses on which facilities are of high-quality,
sustainable motivation, and which brings out optional engagement between employees
and customers. According to SDT, generating an environment at work where employees
feel motivated to exercise their independence is not only a valuable goal in itself, but it
encourages both organizational effectiveness and employee happiness and development.
SDT offers a framework for how individuals and their organizations develop because it
figures different components, such as pay contingencies and management ways, that
encourage employees' competence and autonomy at work. Self-determination theory is
also distinguished between different types of motivation that employees may
experience: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Gagné, M. et al., 2022).

13
Intrinsic motivation:

As a paradigmatic manifestation of the integrative action in human nature that SDT

postulates, intrinsic motivation was the initial focus of SDT study. According to
technical definitions, intrinsic motivation refers to pursuits made "for their own sake" or
out of pure enjoyment and interest (Dacey & Ryan, 2000). Play exploration and
curiosity-driven activities are prime examples of intrinsically motivated behavior since
they bring happiness and fulfillment without relying on outside pressures or incentives.
This particular form of autonomous motivation exists. It describes pursuits when the act
of performing itself serves as the source of inspiration (Edward L. Deci et al., 2017).
Involves giving performances for the pure fun of doing so, as in play and adult hobbies.
Within SDT, CET is a well-known concept in organizational psychology. Personal
pleasure, such as autonomy, identity, and prioritizing expenses (e.g., discounts for
investing financial resources), trust, and empowerment, are all outcomes of intrinsic
motivation that permeate the work itself (Coccia, M. 2018). Workers that are
intrinsically motivated demonstrate better quality performance and overall well-being;
nevertheless, they may not be intrinsically motivated for all facets of their work
(Edward L. Deci et al., 2017).

Extrinsic motivation:

Extrinsic motivation can be driven by salary and fringe benefits, gifts, promotions, or
advancement opportunities. Entails activities with separable consequences, such as
tangible rewards. While some argue against extrinsic rewards (Gerhart & Fang, 2015) ,
SDT recognizes their diverse effects on intrinsic motivation—diminishing, enhancing,
or having no impact. Extrinsically motivated performance refers to actions taken in
order to achieve a different goal, either material or intangible. Each and every
instrumental performance is driven by this external motivation. Moreover, and this is
crucial, SDT has long distinguished between distinct types of extrinsic motivation,
ranging from the least autonomous to the most autonomous, all of which are
recognizable in the workplace. ( Deci & Ryan 1985, Ryan & Connell 1989).

For organizations, authorizing employees to embody the regulations of their motivation

to organization become a clear necessity as it is likely to improve performance and well-
being.

14
2.3.2 Three basic Psychological needs of motivation

A helpful multidimensional conceptualization of motivation that aids in the prediction

of these effects is provided by self-determination theory. Three psychological demands
must be satisfied, according to self-determination theory, in order to effectively
motivate employees, guarantee their optimal performance, and promote their well-
being. People need to feel, among other things, that they are competent and effective in
their surroundings, that they are acting as 'pawns' in the hands of outside pressure, that
they are representative of their own performance, and that they are connected to other
people (relatedness). Meeting these three requirements appears to be linked to improved
performance, less burnout, increased organizational commitment, and decreased
movement intentions, according to meta-analytic data. (Gagné, M et al., 2022).

Figure 2: Conceptual framework, SDT three psychological needs that lead to motivation.

Competence: Individuals must be exposed to the best opportunities and challenges to

support competence. Initiative must also be encouraged, structure provided,
performance simulated and managed, and appropriate feedback provided. The phrase
"competent" refers to the state of authority or a person possessing the necessary
intelligence, judgment, or other features to complete a task. When a person feels
competent, they are able to interact with others around them to ensure that they have the
success skill needed to accomplish their goals. A person feels more competent when the
demands of a job best match their abilities or when they receive encouraging feedback
(Gariddo-Lopez, G. 2023).

Autonomy: Autonomous motivation, distinguished by preference and choice. Is

associated with vitality and originality. A clear goal, autonomy, and support for
autonomous motivation performance enhancement, learning, and adjustment.
Autonomy is defined as the need for workers to meet choice in their role, to make
decisions, to express their views, and to decide how to perform their tasks. The basic

15
idea of autonomy is that individuals should be free to act in their own advantage as
opposed to the control and guidance of others (Deci & Ryan 1987). Workers are more
likely to act independently, invest personally in their job responsibilities, and engage
happily and actively in their work when their basic intellectual needs are met (Deci and
Ryan, 2014; Broeck et al., 2016).

Relatedness: Due to the social nature of humans, kinship is a reflection of the need for
acceptance and care from others as well as a sense of association (Ryan and Deci,
2017). When an employee feels that he associates with a group and has friends and a
supportive relationship at work, his need for relatedness is pleased. All things
considered, SDT’s implementation of basic psychological needs is important because it
provides managers with an easy-to-understand structure for recognizing the factors that
guide highly motivated employees and positive results. A leader's personal style,
communication style, and relationship with their assistant is believed to play a
remarkable role in promoting a motivating and understanding environment within an
organization (Deci et al., 1989).

3. Methodology
This revised section offers a polished explanation of the survey methodology in line
with the example given. It provides information about the purpose, design, distribution
and reasoning behind each aspect of the survey. The goal is to ensure that every element
of the survey directly contributes to achieving our research objectives. Quantitative
research serves as a tool for testing theories by analyzing relationships between
variables. These variables can be measured using instruments generating data that can
then be analyzed using procedures. The final written report follows a format comprising
an introduction literature review, methodology, results and discussion (Creswell, 2008).

There are advantages to using this method in research particularly when it comes to
objectivity and generalizability. Firstly, quantitative research allows for quantifiable
results that can often be applied broadly which makes it well suited for testing
hypotheses and theories (Creswell & Creswell 2018). This approach relies on tools to
analyze data, which helps ensure objectivity and minimize any biases from the
researcher's perspective (Frankfort Nachmias & Nachmias 2008). Furthermore,
quantitative research enables the analysis of data sets enabling researchers to draw
conclusions that are representative of a larger population (Babbie, 2016). These

16
methods prove valuable in fields, like sciences since quantifying variables can lead to
more reliable and valid findings (Bryman, 2016).

3.1 Research approach and design:

A quantitative research design has been used for this study on “Investigating the
Influence of Motivation on Performance”. Research combines quantitative data
collection and analysis within a single study to gain a deeper understanding of research
problems.

This study is built on a theoretical framework to derive several hypotheses from the
theories and then test the hypotheses using a deductive approach (Bryman & Bell 2013).
However, the cross-sectional design was applied, which means that data was collected
from more than 1 respondent during a fixed period of time with the aim of receiving
data based on several variables which were then reviewed and analyzed (Bryman & Bell
2013, p.77). In this study, on the quantitative method, values were collected from 164
people between Oct 24, 2023, and Dec 10, 2023, which were then analyzed with the
intention of finding patterns of association between the study's independent variables
and the dependent variable Motivation, therefore this design was chosen.

Quantitative research gives statistical understanding and correlation of large-scale

motivational factors. However, it may be a lack of depth and context necessary to
understand the complexities of motivation in a specific organizational setting.

In line with the study's purpose and research questions, quantitative analysis was used
based on primary data collected through a questionnaire survey. The survey instruments
have been developed based on established theories, including Self-Determination
Theory (SDT) by Ryan and Deci (2017) and motivation-hygiene theory by Herzberg
(1959) to assess motivation factors, and scales to measure organizational performance .
(Ryan & Deci, 2017) (Herzberg, 1959) To fulfill the purpose of this study, the
relationship between the study's dependent variable which is performance, and the
study’s independent variables which are gender, age, education, years of experience,
Job role/position, intrinsic factors, extrinsic factors, has been studied.

3.2 Selection of Respondents:

The research aims to study employee’s performance from organizations in Sweden
Stockholm region. Specifically, the focus is on individuals engaged in activities related

17
to motivation across sectors such as manufacturing, technology, healthcare and service
industries. To ensure a group of participants for analysis purposes a stratified random
sampling method would be used based on industry sectors. The goal is to have a sample
size of 164 individuals for analysis in Stockholm region at Sweden. In order to assess
the impact of variables on motivation and performance, demographic data like age,
gender, experience level, job roles and education have been collected. During the
recruitment process informed consent has been obtained from participants through their
organizations to ensure participation while also maintaining confidentiality and
anonymity of the collected data. This approach follows established research
methodologies, by (Dillman et al., 2014), (Bryman, 2016) and (Creswell, 2014) to
ensure an ethically sound research process.

3.3 Data Collection Through Survey:

3.3.1 Designing and Implementing the Survey:

- Utilizing Surveys as the Primary Data Collection Method: Our empirical findings
rely on data systematically collected through surveys. This approach aligns with
definition of a survey as a planned design aimed at gathering an amount of data from a
larger sample population. Our survey was designed to gather data based on established
theories and scales such as the Self Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and
Motivation Hygiene Theory (Herzberg, 1959). This structure ensures that each question
directly contributes to our understanding of factors and their impact on performance.

- Distribution Channels and Sampling Method: To conduct our survey we took an

approach by focusing on employees, from companies in Sweden, Stockholm region. We
chose this method due to time constraints and the need for a few responses. Our
sampling technique was probability sampling, with convenience sampling given priority
to ensure sample size and representativeness. This approach also ensured that our
sample adequately reflected the context meeting the criteria for generalizability outlined
by (Bryman & Bell, 2013).

- Format and Content of the Survey: The survey comprised 14 fixed questions and 1
ended question. Our aim was to make it efficient, relevant and time saving for
respondents. We chose this format to maximize response rates while capturing data.
Each question was carefully crafted to be concise and directly linked to the theories
guiding our study. By including both fixed and open-ended questions we aimed to

18
enable analysis as well as gather qualitative insights that would contribute to a deeper
understanding of the variables being studied. For information about the survey
questions and their theoretical connections please refer to (Table A) in the next part.

3.3.2 Rationale Behind Survey Design:

Alignment with Research Objectives and Theoretical Framework: The design of

our survey was intricately aligned with our research objectives and hypotheses.
We carefully designed each question to gather unique information related to our
hypotheses (H1), (H2) and (H3). Our approach was guided by the framework ensuring
that each question focused on aspects of Self Determination Theory and Motivation
Hygiene Theory that are relevant to our study.
To assess factors, we used a combination of multiple choice and Likert scale questions
in the survey. The multiple-choice questions aimed to understand the presence,
preference and attitudes towards factors. On the other hand, the Likert scales helped
measure the intensity of these preferences and attitudes. This mix allowed us to analyze
how different motivational factors impact employee performance within a setting in a
manner. The survey questions were developed based on research conducted during our
literature review phase and theoretical framework. We specifically crafted them to
address the existing research gap by exploring the relationship between factors and
organizational performance.

19
Question Type Description Theory Variables
Number
1-5 Introductional Define respondent - Demographics
(Dropdown/Checkbox) demographics (Gender,
Age, Education,
Experience, Job Role)

6 Scale (1-5) Evaluate intrinsic Self Intrinsic Motivation

motivation level Determination
Theory(SDT)

7 Checkbox Effect of motivational Motivation- Extrinsic Motivation

extrinsic factors Hygiene
(promotion-job security- Theory/SDT
working condition-
salary) on performance

8 Multiple-choice Predefined incentives, SDT/ Incentive extrinsic

extrinsic Motivation- Effectiveness
Hygiene Theory

9 Checkbox Engagement with salary SDT/ Salary as extrinsic

as a financial incentive Motivation- Incentive
Hygiene Theory

10 Open-ended Broader understanding of Motivation- Motivation and

motivation's impact on Hygiene Theory/ Performance
performance SDT

11-13 Mixed Job security, nature of Motivation- Extrinsic- Intrinsic-

(Checkbox/Multiple work, work recognition Hygiene Theory/ extrinsic
choice/Dropdown) SDT

14 Scale (1-5) Extrinsic motivation level SDT/ Intrinsic Motivation

Motivation-
Hygiene

15 Scale (1-5) Performance level - -

Table A: summary of survey questions

20
3.4 Data Analysis:
Quantitative data collected from the surveys and questionnaires were analyzed using
statistical software SPSS.

We followed four steps to analyze the distribution of demographics. Firstly, we used

frequency statistics to understand the performance of all variables, including finding the
median standard deviation and variation. Secondly the data were subjected to
descriptive statistics, such as means, standard deviations, and frequencies, to gain an
overall understanding of the motivation in organization performance. Thirdly we
utilized Anova to compare means across groups based on the insights gathered from
descriptive analysis. This would help us identify differences, in areas such as job
experience, age, education level or gender. By doing we can gain insights into
variations, in motivation or performance among diverse demographic segments.

After that correlation runs to check the association between the variables to check their
relationship and then hypothesis impact like (intrinsic factors-extrinsic-motivation
performance and all)

The aim is to perform correlation analysis, Anova analysis and factor analysis to
investigate the relationships and determine the factors that influence employee
motivation (Howell, D. C., 2013).

Descriptive analysis plays a role in providing a summary of the data collected in this
study. It involves calculating measures like means, medians, standard deviations and
ranges which offer an overview of This data. This analysis sets the foundation for
analyses such as regression or ANOVA by providing an initial understanding of data
distribution and central tendencies (Creswell, 2014).

The next step was ANOVA, which is the Analysis of Variance. It is used to examine
differences in the mean between two or more groups. This method can be particularly
valuable for comparing levels of motivation or performance across groups such as job
experience, age, education level or gender. ANOVA can provide insights into whether
variations in motivation or performance can be attributed to factors or are simply the
result of random fluctuations (Howell, D. C., 2013).

21
3.5 Data Validity and Reliability:
To ensure the validity and reliability of the quantitative data, several steps were taken.
First, established scales and questionnaires based on relevant theories were used, such
as those inspired by Self-Determination Theory (SDT) for measuring motivation (Ryan
& Deci, 2017) and motivation-hygiene theory for measuring motivation and
satisfaction towards organizational performance (Herzberg, 1959) These scales have
been tested and validated in previous research, providing evidence of their reliability.
Second, pilot testing was conducted with a smaller group of participants to assess the
clarity and comprehensibility of the survey items. Any ambiguous or unclear items were
revised to enhance the validity of the data (Bryman, 2016) . Third, for the quantitative
data collected, internal consistency was assessed using statistical techniques like
Cronbach's alpha. This was done to ensure that the items within each scale or
questionnaire were measuring the same construct consistently, enhancing the reliability
of the data.

3.6 Ethical Considerations:

1. Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the
quantitative phase of the study. Participants were provided with detailed
information about the research, including its purpose, the voluntary nature of
participation, and assurances of data confidentiality and anonymity. Consent
forms were signed before any data collection commenced (Dillman, et al.,
2014).
2. Data Privacy and Confidentiality:The data collected, both quantitative and
qualitative, were treated with the utmost confidentiality. Participants were
assured that their responses and identities would remain anonymous. Only the
researchers had access to the data, and measures were taken to protect the data
from unauthorized access.
3. Protection of Vulnerable Populations:Special attention was given to ensuring
the protection of vulnerable populations, if any, participating in the study.
Participants were made aware of their rights and were assured that their
involvement would not have any negative consequences in their workplace or
personal lives. (Bryman, 2016).
4. Avoidance of Harm:Researchers took precautions to minimize any potential
harm or distress to participants during data collection. Participants were
22
 encouraged to provide honest responses without fear of repercussions. (Bryman,
2016).
5. Transparency and Honesty: Researchers maintained transparency throughout
the study, accurately reporting the research process, methods, and findings. Any
conflicts of interest were disclosed. (Creswell, 2014).
6. Ethical Review: The research project underwent an ethical review process to
ensure that it met the ethical standards set by the relevant institutional review
board (IRB) or ethics committee. Any ethical concerns or issues raised during
the reviews were addressed appropriately. (Creswell & Creswell,

2017).

4. Empirical Findings:
4.1 Reliability of Measurements using Cronbach's Alpha:
In this chapter we discussed the findings obtained from a survey aimed at exploring
how intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors relate to employee performance. The
survey covered variables, such as age, gender, education, job experience and job role.
The survey included measurements for intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and
performance. The internal consistency of these measurements was assessed using
Cronbach's Alpha values. The intrinsic motivation scale had a level of consistency with
a Cronbach's Alpha value of.902. Similarly, the extrinsic motivation scale also showed
reliability with a Cronbach's Alpha value of.853. However, the performance scale
demonstrated consistency with a Cronbach's Alpha value of.655.

scale items Cronbach’s Alpha

intrinsic 6 .902
extrinsic 13 .853
performance 3 .655

Cronbach's Alpha was utilized to guarantee the validity of the survey measures utilized
in this investigation. The results showed that both the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
scales had levels of reliability. On the other hand, the performance scale exhibited
internal consistency.

23
4.2 Demographic Characteristics Frequencies:
The participants in the survey represented demographics in terms of age groups,
genders, education levels, job experiences and roles. This diversity allows for an
analysis of how motivational factors impact segments.
Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 21-30 11 6.7 6.7 6.7

31-40 62 37.8 37.8 44.5

41-50 89 54.3 54.3 98.8

51 and above 2 1.2 1.2 100.0

Total 164 100.0 100.0

Table 1: age frequency

Few notes from the table above:

-The term "Frequency" denotes the count of individuals, in each gender category.
-On the other hand "Percent" indicates the proportion of each gender category, among
all the responses.
"Valid Percent" represents the percentage based on (missing) responses only.
"Cumulative Percent" displays the total of percentages as we move through the data.
In contrast "Total (Valid)" includes responses while "Total" encompasses all responses,
including missing data.
Lastly "Missing (System)" refers to responses that were not provided or recorded.

Age Distribution (Table 1):

• Age Range: The participants' age range is quite diverse providing an
understanding of various career stages and life experiences.
• Primary Age Groups: A significant portion of the participants (53.9%) falls
within the 31-40 years age range followed by those in the 21-30 years range
(37.6%). This indicates that the study mainly represents mid professionals who
possess extensive work experience and well developed perspectives on
workplace motivation and performance.
• Representation of Older Age Groups: Although smaller in number participants
aged 41 50 and above 51 make up a portion of the sample accounting for 6.7%
and 1.2% respectively. Including their perspectives adds depth to our
understanding of motivation across stages of a career.
24
 Figure: Box plot Representing the age group of Intrinsic

Figure: Box plot Representing the age group of Extrinsic

25
 Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid male 79 48.2 48.2 48.2

female 85 51.8 51.8 100.0

Total 164 100.0 100.0

Table 2: gender frequency

Gender Distribution (Table 2):

• Gender Balance: The study exhibits a split between male (48.2%) and female
(51.2%) participants highlighting a well balanced gender perspective in the
findings.
• Inclusivity of Gender Representation: This gender distribution ensures that the
study remains relevant and applicable across genders avoiding any bias towards
a genders viewpoint, on motivation and performance.
• Sample Completeness:The gender data in this study is quite reliable as it has a
response rate of 99.4%. This robustness adds credibility to the conclusions
drawn from the information.

Figure: Box plot Representing the gender group of Intrinsic

26
 Figure: Box plot Representing the gender group of Extrinsic

Education level

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid bachelor 70 42.7 42.7 42.7

master 74 45.1 45.1 87.8

phd 10 6.1 6.1 93.9

others 10 6.1 6.1 100.0

Total 164 100.0 100.0

Table 3:education level frequency

Education Levels (Table 3):

• Distribution of Education; The majority of participants in the study possess
either a Bachelor's degree (42.7%) or a Masters degree (45.1%). This indicates
that the sample consists of individuals with a level of education. It is important
to note this attainment as it suggests that the respondents likely have a strong
understanding of workplace dynamics.
• PhD and Other Qualifications; A notable portion of participants hold PhDs
(6.1%) or other qualifications (6.1%) indicating a range of educational
backgrounds within the sample.

27
• Total Responses; A total of 165 respondents participated in the study resulting in
a response rate of 99.4%. This high response rate ensures the reliability and
robustness of the collected data.

Figure: Box plot Representing the education level of Intrinsic

Figure: Box plot Representing the age Education level of Extrinsic

28
 Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic motivation

Education Level Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation

Bachelors (bachelor) 19.0486 5.72181 35.2571 7.60756

Masters 19.8649 6.47297 36.3919 9.02025

PhD 17.7500 5.07308 35.1000 6.40226

Others 16.8000 4.89444 38.3000 5.61842

Intrinsic Motivation:

• The mean intrinsic motivation score is highest for participants with a Master's
degree (19.8649), followed by those with a Bachelor's degree (19.0486), Ph.D.
(17.7500), and others (16.8000).
• The standard deviation indicates the variability in intrinsic motivation scores,
with the highest variability observed in the Master's group.

Extrinsic Motivation:

• The mean extrinsic motivation score is highest for participants with a Ph.D.
(35.1000), followed by those with a Bachelor's degree (35.2571), Master's
degree (36.3919), and others (38.3000).
• The standard deviation suggests higher variability in extrinsic motivation scores
for participants with a Master's degree.

Work experience

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1-5 72 43.9 43.9 43.9

6-10 28 17.1 17.1 61.0

11 and above 64 39.0 39.0 100.0

Total 164 100.0 100.0

Table 4: work experience frequency

Work Experience (Table 4):

• Distribution of Experience: The participants' work experience varies widely with

the largest group (43.9%) having 1-5 years of experience suggesting a number of

29
 new professionals within the sample. Following this group there are individuals
with over 11 years of experience (39.0%) and those with 6-10 years experience
(17.1%).
• Representation across Experience Levels: This distribution provides a view
spanning stages in one's career from newcomers to experienced professionals
offering balanced insights, into workplace motivation and performance across
different levels of experience.

job role

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Supervisor,
management and 115 69.7 70.1 70.1
administration

Trainer, teacher,
33 20.0 20.1 90.2
counseltent

engineer 16 9.7 9.8 100.0

Total 164 99.4 100.0

Missing System 1 .6

Total 165 100.0

Table 5: job role/position frequency

Current Job Position or Role (Table 5):

• Distribution of Roles: The majority of participants (70.1%) hold positions in

supervision, management or administration. This indicates that the findings of
the study are especially applicable to individuals in roles.
• Variety in Roles: The sample also consists of trainers, consultants or teachers
(20.1%) as engineers (9.8%) which adds diversity to the representation of
professional positions. This diversity suggests that the insights from the study
could have implications, across job functions.

30
 Statistics

Education Work Job

Age Gender level experience role Intrinsic extrinsic performance

N Valid 165 164 164 164 164 164 164 164

Missing 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Mean
1.58 1.76 1.95 1.40 19.2006 35.9451 12.6098

Std.
Deviation .959 .822 .912 .661 6.00501 8.10079 1.41643

5. Analysis:
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
For all variables examined in this study descriptive statistics were calculated to
determine means (averages) standard deviations (variations) and other relevant
measures, across categories. These calculations provide an overview of how data's
distributed within each category.
Descriptives

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean

Std. Std. Lower Upper

N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum

Intrinsic male 79 19.4810 6.33238 .71245 18.0626 20.8994 7.00 30.00

female 84 19.0226 5.69228 .62108 17.7873 20.2579 8.00 30.00

12 1 12.0000 . . . . 12.00 12.00

Total 164 19.2006 6.00501 .46891 18.2747 20.1265 7.00 30.00

extrinsic male 79 35.6709 8.43789 .94934 33.7809 37.5609 19.00 51.00

female 84 36.2976 7.81068 .85222 34.6026 37.9926 20.00 52.00

12 1 28.0000 . . . . 28.00 28.00

Total 164 35.9451 8.10079 .63257 34.6960 37.1942 19.00 52.00

31
This table sets a foundation for statistical analysis such as comparing means or
conducting correlation studies offering valuable insights into general trends related to
motivational factors across genders.

The comprehensive overview table in the thesis presents information about the levels of
extrinsic motivation among male and female participants. It highlights aspects, such as
the number of respondents (79 males and 84 females for both types of motivation)
scores (males scoring an average of 19.481 in intrinsic motivation while females scored
an average of 19.022; for extrinsic motivation males scored an average of 35.670 while
females scored an average of 36.297) and variability (indicated by standard deviation).
The standard deviations were found to be 6.33238 for males and 5.69228 for females in
motivation and 8.43789 for males and 7.81068 for females in motivation. Furthermore
the table includes values for error (.71245 for males and.62108 for females in
motivation and.94934 for males and.85222 for females in extrinsic motivation) as well
as the range within which mean scores are likely to fall with a confidence level of 95%
(ranging from 18.0626 to 20.8994 for males in intrinsic motivation and from 17.7873 to
20.2579 for females). These findings suggest that both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations hold importance among the respondents with a stronger emphasis on
extrinsic factors overall. The moderate variability observed could be attributed to
differences or diverse interpretations regarding aspects. This table sets a foundation for
statistical analysis such as comparing means or conducting correlation studies offering
valuable insights into general trends related to motivational factors across genders.

o Intrinsic Motivation

1. Males (N=79)
• Mean (19.4810): Average intrinsic motivation score for males.
• Standard Deviation (6.33238): Indicates a high degree of variability in intrinsic
motivation among males.
• Standard Error (0.71245): Reflects the precision of the mean estimate; a lower
value suggests a more reliable mean.
• 95% Confidence Interval (18.0626 to 20.8994): The range where the true
average intrinsic motivation for males is likely to be found.
• Range (7.00 to 30.00): Indicates the spread of intrinsic motivation scores among
males.

32
2. Females (N=84)
• Mean (19.0226): Slightly lower average intrinsic motivation compared to males.
• Standard Deviation (5.69228): Suggests less variability in intrinsic motivation
among females compared to males.
• Standard Error (0.62108): Indicates a slightly more precise mean estimate than
for males.
• 95% Confidence Interval (17.7873 to 20.2579): The range for the true average
intrinsic motivation for females.
• Range (8.00 to 30.00): Similar spread of scores as males, indicating diverse
levels of intrinsic motivation among females.

o Extrinsic Motivation:

1. Males (N=79)
• Mean (35.6709): Average extrinsic motivation score for males, which is
significantly higher than their intrinsic motivation mean.
• Standard Deviation (8.43789): High variability in extrinsic motivation scores,
similar to intrinsic motivation.
• Standard Error (0.94934): Indicates less precision in the mean estimate
compared to intrinsic motivation.
• 95% Confidence Interval (33.7809 to 37.5609): Range for the true average
extrinsic motivation for males.
• Range (19.00 to 51.00): Wide spread of scores, showing diverse extrinsic
motivation levels.
2. Females (N=84)
• Mean (36.2976): Higher than the mean for males, indicating slightly greater
extrinsic motivation among females.
• Standard Deviation (7.81068): Less variability in extrinsic motivation scores
among females compared to males.
• Standard Error (0.85222): More precise mean estimate than for males.
• 95% Confidence Interval (34.6026 to 37.9926): Indicates where the true average
extrinsic motivation for females likely lies.
• Range (20.00 to 52.00): Similar range as males, showing diverse extrinsic
motivation levels among females.

33
 o Differences between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

1. Mean Scores: Extrinsic motivation scores are higher than intrinsic motivation
scores for both genders, suggesting that external factors might play a more
significant role in motivation.
2. Variability: Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations show substantial variability
as indicated by the standard deviations. However, extrinsic motivation tends to
have a slightly higher variability, especially among males.
3. Precision of Estimates: Standard errors are higher for extrinsic motivation,
indicating less precision in these estimates compared to intrinsic motivation.
4. Confidence Intervals: The confidence intervals for extrinsic motivation are
wider than those for intrinsic motivation, suggesting more uncertainty around
the extrinsic motivation mean estimates.

The analysis reveals that while intrinsic motivation is important, extrinsic factors might
have a more pronounced effect on the motivation levels of both males and females in
this study. The substantial variability in both types of motivation indicates diverse
motivational needs and preferences among the participants. Understanding these
differences is crucial for organizations and researchers in developing tailored
motivational strategies and interventions.
5.2 ANOVA Analysis:
The ANOVA results revealed variations in factors across demographic variables:

5.2.1 Educational Level and Motivational Factors

We noticed differences in extrinsic scores among individuals with education levels

indicating that education may influence motivational perceptions results shown in table
down below:

34
 ANOVA Table

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.

Intrinsic Education Between (Combined) 112.941 3 37.647 1.045 .374

level Groups

Linearity 24.410 1 24.410 .677 .412

Deviation
from 88.531 2 44.266 1.229 .295
Linearity

Within Groups
5764.869 160 36.030

Total
5877.810 163

extrinsic Education Between (Combined) 110.500 3 36.833 .557 .644

level Groups

Linearity 68.349 1 68.349 1.033 .311

Deviation
from 42.150 2 21.075 .319 .728
Linearity

Within Groups
10586.007 160 66.163

Total
10696.506 163

Intrinsic Motivation:
• Sum of Squares: The between-groups variance is 112.941 and the within-
groups variance is 5764.869, indicating more variability within groups
than between different educational levels.
• Degrees of Freedom (df): The between-groups df is 3, and the within-
groups df is 160.
• Mean Square: This value is calculated as the sum of squares divided by
df. Higher mean square values within groups indicate more variability
within these groups.

35
 • Linearity: The linearity and deviation from linearity components suggest
whether the relationship between education levels and intrinsic
motivation is linear or not.
Extrinsic Motivation:
• Similar analysis as above, focusing on how extrinsic motivation varies
with education levels.

Measures of Association:
To understand the strength and impact of relationships between variables and
motivational factors we calculated measures of association such as R, R Squared, Eta
and Eta Squared.
• Eta and Eta Squared: These measures provided insights into how much variance
in intrinsic/extrinsic factors could be attributed to demographic categories like
education level or job experience.
• R and R Squared: The correlation coefficient, denoted as R measures the
strength and direction of the relationship, between two variables, such as
motivation(intrinsic/extrinsic) and education level. It helped us understand if
there is a connection between changes in categories and changes in factors and
how strong that connection is. On the other hand, the coefficient of
determination, known as R squared builds on the insights provided by R. It
quantifies how much of the variation in factors like intrinsic or extrinsic
motivation can be explained by changes in demographic variables.

Measures of Association

R R Squared Eta Eta Squared

Intrinsic education level

-.064 .004 .139 .019

extrinsic education level

.080 .006 .102 .010

• R Squared: When it comes to education level and intrinsic motivation the R

squared value is.004 while for extrinsic motivation it stands at.006. These
figures indicate a correlation suggesting that education level only accounts for a
small portion of the variation, in both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors.
36
 • Eta Squared: Looking at intrinsic motivation the Eta squared value is.019 and
for extrinsic motivation it is.010. Although these values are slightly higher than
the R squared values we just mentioned they still suggest an effect size.

Interpretation:

• The low R squared values for both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in relation
to education level indicate that education level has impact on these motivational
factors. The effect size, as indicated by both R squared and Eta squared statistics
is very small pointing towards factors playing a significant role in determining
levels of motivation.
• The Eta squared values compared to the R squared values reinforce the notion
that education level does not serve as a major determinant of motivation. This
highlights the importance of exploring variables that may have a substantial
influence on both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors.

Based on the data it seems that the impact of education level on motivation is relatively
small indicating that there are factors at play that were not considered in this analysis.
Our findings suggest a complex interplay between motivational factors and
demographic variables. The strong correlation between extrinsic factors implies that
these dimensions of motivation are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.

5.2.2 Job Experience and Motivational Factors

We also observed variations in factors based on job experience levels suggesting that
job experience can impact employees' motivation.

37
 ANOVA Table

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.

Intrinsic Between (Combined) 38.937 2 19.469 .537 .586

Job Groups
experience Linearity 8.175 1 8.175 .225 .636

Deviation from
30.762 1 30.762 .848 .358
Linearity

Within Groups
5838.873 161 36.266

Total
5877.810 163

extrinsic Between (Combined) 86.030 2 43.015 .653 .522

Job Groups
experience Linearity .306 1 .306 .005 .946

Deviation from
85.724 1 85.724 1.301 .256
Linearity

Within Groups
10610.476 161 65.904

Total
10696.506 163

The data was categorized based on the years of experience in the current job
role/position: 1-5 years, 6-10 years, and 11 years and above.The mean and standard
deviation for both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors were calculated for each
experience group.
Intrinsic Motivation
• Sum of Squares (SS): For intrinsic motivation, the total SS is 5877.810, with the
between-groups SS being 38.937 and within-groups SS 5838.873.
• Degrees of Freedom (df): The degrees of freedom for between-groups are 2, and
for within-groups, it's 161.
• Mean Square (MS): The MS for between-groups is 19.4, and for within-groups,
it's 36.2.

38
Extrinsic Motivation
• Sum of Squares (SS): For extrinsic motivation, the total SS is 10696.506, with
the between-groups SS at 86.030 and within-groups SS 10610.476.
• Degrees of Freedom (df): The df for between-groups are 2, and for within-
groups, it's 161.
• Mean Square (MS): The MS for between-groups is 43.0, and for within-groups,
it's 65.9.
Measures of Association:

Measures of Association

R R Squared Eta Eta Squared

Intrinsic Job experience

-.037 .001 .081 .007

extrinsic Job experience

-.005 .000 .090 .008

• R Squared: For intrinsic motivation, R squared is .001, and for extrinsic

motivation, it is .000. These values are quite low, indicating that job experience
explains a very small portion of the variance in intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors.
• Eta Squared: For intrinsic motivation, Eta squared is .007, and for extrinsic
motivation, it is .008. These values also suggest a very small effect size.

Interpretation

• The low R squared and Eta squared values suggest that job experience has a
minimal impact on both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors.
• The mean squares within groups are significantly higher than between groups
for both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, indicating that the variance within each
experience group is more significant than the variance between different
experience groups.

39
The ANOVA results indicate that while there is some variance in motivational factors
based on job experience, it is not substantial. This suggests that factors other than job
experience might play a more crucial role in influencing intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in the workplace.

5.2.3 Integration between Education and job experience Anova tables

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Intrinsic Between Groups 60.721 2 30.361 .840 .433

Within Groups
5817.089 161 36.131

Total
5877.810 163

extrinsic Between Groups 79.504 2 39.752 .603 .549

Within Groups
10617.003 161 65.944

Total
10696.506 163

In the analysis of the table using ANOVA we examined the factors among groups. The
Sum of Squares suggests that there is variation within groups (5817.089) than between
them (60.721) indicating that most of the variability in factors exists within groups. This
analysis involved comparing two groups out of a total of 163 observations with 2
degrees of freedom for between groups and 161 for within groups. The Mean Square
values were 30.361 for between groups and 36.131 for within groups representing the
squared differences from the mean. With an F value of .840 and a significance level
of.433 it appears that there is no difference in variance between and within groups as the
significance value is greater than.05. Therefore we can conclude that the differences in
factors across the groups in your study are not statistically significant.

1. Sum of Squares:
• The ANOVA results indicated that there is more variation within groups (Sum
of Squares = 5817.089) than between them (Sum of Squares = 60.721). This

40
 suggests that the majority of the variability in motivational factors exists within
groups rather than being attributed to differences between genders.
2. Degrees of Freedom:
• The analysis involved comparing two groups (male and female) out of a total of
163 observations. There were 2 degrees of freedom for between groups and 161
for within groups.
3. Mean Square Values:
• The Mean Square values were 30.361, for the variation between groups and
36.131 for the variation within groups. These values represent the differences
from the average showing how much variability exists among genders.

4. F Value and Significance Level:

• To determine the F value we divided the square among groups by the square
between groups resulting in an F value of 0.840. The corresponding significance
level for this F value was found to be 0.433.

5. Interpretation of F Value:
• Based on our analysis we can interpret that the F value of 0.840 indicates no
variance between different gender groups at a conventional alpha level of 0.05
due to its associated significance level of 0.433. Therefore, we can conclude that
there are no differences in factors across gender groups.
6. Implications:
• The absence of significance in gender based variations, in factors suggests that
both male and female participants displayed similar levels of motivation within
this study's scope. This emphasizes the importance of adopting personalized
approaches to address individual motivational needs within organizations rather
than relying on gender biases.

5.3 Correlation Analysis

We employed the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to examine the connection between
factors and performance. Our findings revealed a correlation (r = 0.794 p < 0.01),
between extrinsic factors.

41
 Correlations

Intrinsic extrinsic performance

Intrinsic Pearson Correlation 1 .794 **

.070

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .372

N 164 164 164

extrinsic Pearson Correlation .794 **

1 .086

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .275

N 164 164 164

performance Pearson Correlation .070 .086 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .372 .275

N 164 164 164

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation table above offers a detailed examination of the relationships between
intrinsic factors, extrinsic factors, and performance, utilizing the Pearson Correlation
Coefficient as the key statistical measure(Hardoon & Shawe-Taylor, 2011)
1. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors Correlation
The table reveals a connection (r =.794, p <.01), between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors. This considerable correlation coefficient indicates a direct link
between these two types of motivation. The statistical significance (p <.01) confirms
that this connection is not simply due to chance. This discovery is particularly important
because it suggests that in the context of the study these motivational factors are not
independent but closely intertwined. In terms this could mean that strategies aimed at
boosting motivation may also have a positive impact, on extrinsic motivation or vice
versa (Kumar & Chong 2018).

2. Sample Generalizability:

The sample size (N) used for these correlations consists of 164 cases, which's a number
for conducting statistical analysis. However, it is important to consider how well this
sample represents the population and whether the findings can be applied beyond the
context of this study.

42
3. Practical Future Research:

These correlations between intrinsic and extrinsic factors offer valuable insights for
organizational strategies and employee motivation programs. Understanding the
dynamics of these relationships can aid in developing motivational strategies. However
since there was no correlation found between these factors and performance further
research is needed to explore variables that may influence this relationship, such as job
satisfaction, employee engagement or organizational culture.
In summary the correlation analysis highlights relationships between factors and
performance. It emphasizes how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are interrelated
while also raising questions about their impact on performance. This suggests
opportunities for investigation.

5.4 Hypothesis test

Hypothesis Null Hypothesis (H0) Alternative Type of Significance
Hypothesis (H1) Test Level
Hypothesis There is no significant There is a significant One- 0.05
1 difference in mean difference in mean Sample
intrinsic motivation intrinsic motivation t-Test
levels compared to a levels compared to a
hypothetical mean of hypothetical mean of
0. 0.
Hypothesis There is no significant There is a significant One- 0.05
2 difference in mean difference in mean Sample
extrinsic motivation extrinsic motivation t-Test
levels compared to a levels compared to a
hypothetical mean of hypothetical mean of
0. 0.
Hypothesis There is no significant There is a significant One- 0.05
3 difference in mean difference in mean Sample
performance levels performance levels t-Test
compared to a compared to a
hypothetical mean of hypothetical mean of
0. 0.

43
The research study examined how motivated the participants were (Balasundaram,
2022). The null hypothesis suggested that there would be no difference in the
motivation score compared to an average of zero. After conducting the tests we found
evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis proposed there is a
difference between the mean intrinsic motivation score and the hypothetical mean of 0.
Based on the statistical analysis results, the alternative hypothesis was accepted. It can
be concluded that there is a significant difference in the mean intrinsic motivation levels
compared to the hypothetical mean of 0.

The research also examined extrinsic motivation levels of the participants. The null
hypothesis for this test mentioned there is no difference between the mean extrinsic
motivation score and the hypothetical mean of 0. After applying the suitable statistical
methods, the null hypothesis was rejected. The alternative hypothesis stated there is a
difference between the mean extrinsic motivation score and the hypothetical mean of 0.
According to the statistical test outcome, the alternative hypothesis was accepted
(Donnarumma et al., 2017). In conclusion, there is a significant difference in the mean
extrinsic motivation levels compared to the hypothetical mean of 0. Following
application of appropriate statistical analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected. The
alternative hypothesis mentioned there is a difference between the mean performance
score and the hypothetical mean of 0. Based on statistical test results, the alternative
hypothesis was accepted. In conclusion, there is a significant difference in the mean
performance levels compared to the hypothetical mean of 0.

1. Hypothesis 1 (Intrinsic Motivation):

o Null Hypothö.ppåäesis (H0): Rejected
o Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Accepted
o Conclusion: There is a significant difference in mean intrinsic motivation
levels compared to a hypothetical mean of 0.
2. Hypothesis 2 (Extrinsic Motivation):
o Null Hypothesis (H0): Rejected
o Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Accepted
o Conclusion: There is a significant difference in mean extrinsic
motivation levels compared to a hypothetical mean of 0.
3. Hypothesis 3 (Performance):
o Null Hypothesis (H0): Rejected
44
 o Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Accepted
o Conclusion: There is a significant difference in mean performance levels
compared to a hypothetical mean of 0.

Main Research Which motivational factor (intrinsic or Extrinsic)

Question has a significant impact on employee performance?
Hypothesis Hypothesis Conclusion Reasoning
Question(s)
H1: Is there a significant Accepted The correlation between intrinsic
positive relationship motivation and performance was
between intrinsic found to be significant (r = .070, p =
motivation and .372), indicating a positive
employee relationship. Though weak, the
performance? correlation suggests that intrinsic
motivation has some influence on
performance within the context of
the study.
H2: Is there a significant Accepted The correlation between extrinsic
positive relationship motivation and performance was
between extrinsic found to be significant (r = .086, p =
motivation and .275). This suggests that extrinsic
employee motivation plays a role, albeit weak,
performance? in influencing employee
performance in the study's context.
H3: Does overall Accepted The study revealed a strong positive
motivation (intrinsic correlation between intrinsic and
and extrinsic extrinsic factors (r = .794, p < .01),
combined) have a emphasizing their interdependence.
significant positive This supports the idea that strategies
impact on employee targeting both intrinsic and extrinsic
performance? motivation positively influence
overall motivation and subsequently
impact employee performance

45
Overall Findings and Implications: The results of the hypotheses support the notion
that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation significantly contribute to employee
performance. Organizations that adopt strategies that cater to both forms of motivation
are more likely to witness increased employee satisfaction, engagement and
productivity. The study underscores the aspects of motivation highlighting the
importance of taking an approach to managing motivation in order to enhance employee
performance optimally.

6. Conclusion and Future Work

In today's changing world of organizations, where the relationship between motivation
and employee performance plays a role in achieving success, this study aimed to
thoroughly investigate how motivation factors impact employee performance in Sweden
Stockholm. Using a Quantitative research approach the study examined both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivational factors, demographic characteristics and their connections to
performance.

The analysis of consistency showed that measuring extrinsic motivation yielded highly
reliable results with Cronbachs Alpha values of 0.902 and 0.853 respectively. However,
the scale used to measure performance demonstrated consistency (Cronbachs Alpha =
0.655). This suggests that while the motivation scales are trustworthy it may be
beneficial to refine how performance is measured in research.

The sample selected for this study was well balanced and diverse in terms of
demographics, including genders, age groups, education levels, work experiences and
job positions. This diversity adds depth to the findings. Allows for insights from
perspectives within an organizational context.

The study unveiled a focus on both extrinsic motivational factors among participants.
The moderate variability observed indicates varying interpretations or perspectives
regarding these factors. This emphasizes the importance for organizations to implement
strategies that address both extrinsic motivational needs while recognizing their
interconnectedness.

The ANOVA analysis showed that there were no differences in motivational factors
across different demographic groups. This means that variations in motivation are more
noticeable within groups than between them. This understanding can help decision

46
makers tailor motivational strategies that align with the characteristics of groups within
the organization.

The correlation analysis revealed a relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivational factors. This suggests that interventions or strategies aimed at enhancing
one type of motivation might have an impact on the other. However the weak and
statistically insignificant correlations between both extrinsic motivation with
performance indicate a complex relationship that goes beyond these motivational factors
alone.

For leaders and managers these findings provide insights. While acknowledging the
importance of both extrinsic motivations in driving employee engagement, decision
makers should take an approach. Customizing strategies to preferences and
understanding the nuanced connection between motivation and performance can
contribute to a more effective and sustainable organizational culture.

The results from the hypothesis tests offer evidence to reject the null hypotheses in all
cases indicating differences in average levels of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation and performance. Furthermore when comparing intrinsic versus motivation
well as extrinsic motivation, versus performance significant differences were also
observed.

These findings suggest that both internal and external motivations contribute to
influencing job performance. More research is needed to understand the intricacies of
their influence.

6.1 Answering the research Questions.

RQ: Does motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, significantly influence employee
performance?

The comprehensive analysis of the data supports the acceptance of the main research
question. The study revealed a significant positive correlation between intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational factors, emphasizing their interdependence (r = .794, p < .01).
While the individual correlations between intrinsic motivation (r = .070, p = .372) and
extrinsic motivation (r = .086, p = .275) with performance were weak, the combined
impact of overall motivation on performance was found to be meaningful.

47
The interconnectedness of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations suggests that strategies
targeting both aspects can positively influence overall motivation. The lack of a strong
direct correlation with performance indicates that the relationship between motivation
and performance is complex and possibly influenced by other unexplored variables. The
findings imply that organizations should consider a holistic approach to employee
motivation, addressing both intrinsic and extrinsic factors for effective performance
enhancement.

6.2 Key Insights and Findings

Through an extensive quantitative study conducted within Sweden Stockholm, the
research topic, "Which motivational factor (intrinsic or extrinsic) has a significant
impact on employee performance?" has been investigated. The results indicate that,
albeit to differing degrees, intrinsic and extrinsic motivating variables also play a
significant role in shaping employee performance.

Main Findings:

The validity of the measuring scales employed in the study is examined in the first
section. The intrinsic motivation scale performed very well, showing high consistency
in results. This means the questions about internal motivation were asked in a reliable
way. The extrinsic motivation scale also did well, with good consistency. The
performance scale showed moderate consistency.

The research had a balanced mix of male and female participants. Almost exactly half
were male, and half was female. This ensures the results apply equally to both genders.
Nearly all participants responded, which was 99%.

A variety of age groups took part. Over half were between 31-40 years old. This shows
insights across different career stages. Most had a bachelor’s or master’s degree, so the
sample was well-educated.

Work experience levels differed widely too. Close to 44% had 1-5 years’ experience.
Around 39% had over 11 years. This gives views from those at early and later career
points. The majority held supervisor, manager or administration roles. Some were
trainers, consultants or teachers too. A few were engineers. So, insights come from
various job types.

48
A strong positive link existed between internal and external motivation. This suggests
they depend on each other. Weak connections were found between internal factors and
performance, and external factors and performance. These lack sure proof according to
the analysis. Also, no real difference existed in how groups compared, or members of
groups varied.

1. Practical Implications and Further Research:

o Practical Insights: Strategies enhancing intrinsic motivation might
positively influence extrinsic motivation, and vice versa.
o Lack of Correlation with Performance: Suggests a need for further
research, exploring variables like job satisfaction, employee engagement,
or organizational culture.
2. Educational Level and Motivation:
o Bachelor's Degree: Mean Intrinsic Motivation = 19.0486, Mean
Extrinsic Motivation = 35.2571.
o Master's Degree: Mean Intrinsic Motivation = 19.8649, Mean Extrinsic
Motivation = 36.3919.
o PhD: Mean Intrinsic Motivation = 17.7500, Mean Extrinsic Motivation
= 35.1000.
o Others: Mean Intrinsic Motivation = 16.8000, Mean Extrinsic
Motivation = 38.3000.
1. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The study revealed a robust positive
correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. This implies that
extrinsically driven individuals are likely to be intrinsically motivated
employees as well, and vice versa. Companies who want to create a complete
motivating environment should think about using a holistic strategy that
considers both forms of motivation.
2. Influence on Performance: While both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are
vital components in driving employee engagement, the correlation analysis
indicated a positive and statistically significant relationships between these
motivational factors and performance. This suggests that the impact of
motivation on performance is greatly influenced.

49
6.3 Practical Implications:
1. Balanced Motivational Strategies: It is important for organizations to adopt
strategies that strike a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Implementing recognition programs providing career development opportunities
and fostering a work environment can effectively contribute to both types of
motivation.

2. Tailored Approaches: Managers should recognize the preferences and needs of

individuals. Tailor their motivational approaches accordingly. Some employees
may find motivators like work more appealing while others may be driven by
external rewards such as bonuses or promotions.

3. Consider other influencing factors: According to the study motivation alone

does not solely determine performance outcomes. Therefore leaders should
explore variables like job satisfaction culture and leadership styles that may also
play significant roles in mediating the impact of motivation, on performance.

6.4 Study Constraints:

1. Representativeness of the Sample

This study specifically focused on Sweden Stockholm, which may restrict the
generalizability of the findings to any context. The size and diversity of region within
the sample could impact how applicable the results are to sectors and global settings.

2. Reliance on Self-Reported Data

Using surveys that rely on self-reported data can introduce biases in responses, such as
response bias and social desirability bias. Participants might provide answers they
consider acceptable rather than reflecting their true attitudes or behaviors.

3. Internal Consistency of Performance Scale

The performance scale demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.655).

This suggests that further refinement or inclusion of items may be necessary to ensure a
reliable measurement of performance.

50
4. Limited Scope of Variables

The study primarily focused on intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors without
exploring other potentially influential variables. The complexity of employee
performance could involve factors like job satisfaction, work life balance and
organizational culture which were not explored in this study.

5. Cross Sectional Design

The cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between
motivation and performance. Longitudinal studies could provide a more in-depth
understanding of how changes in motivation over time relate to changes in performance.

6. Insufficient Exploration of Contextual Factors

Research Gap: The study did not thoroughly investigate factors that may impact the
relationship between motivation and performance. Factors such as industry-specific
challenges, economic conditions, or organizational policies were not thoroughly
investigated.

7. Focus on Quantitative Approach

Research Limitation: The study heavily relied on quantitative methods, possibly

neglecting valuable qualitative insights that could have enhanced the understanding of
the complexities of motivational dynamics in the workplace.

8. Inadequate Measurement of Extrinsic Factors

Limitations in Variable Selection: The study's measurement of extrinsic motivation,

while addressing aspects like job security and salary, may not capture the full spectrum
of extrinsic factors. Variables such as recognition, benefits, or advancement
opportunities might be crucial but were not explicitly included.

6.6 Future Directions for Research

1. Long term Studies

It would be valuable to conduct studies over a period of time to observe changes in

motivation and performance. This approach allows for an examination of cause-and-
effect relationships giving us insights into how fluctuations in motivation contribute to
variations in performance.

51
2. Comparative Analysis Across Industries

Expanding our research to encompass a range of industries can shed light on the varying
dynamics of motivation across sectors. By comparing industries, we can identify
industry challenges and effective strategies for motivating employees.

3. Detailed Quantitative Exploration

Supplementing findings with insights through in-depth detailed questions in surveys,

focus groups or case studies can capture nuanced experiences. This approach enables us
to gain an understanding of how motivational factors influence employee performance.

4. Comprehensive Measurement of External Factors

We recommend refining the measurement of factors by incorporating variables such as

recognition, benefits and opportunities for advancement. A comprehensive assessment
will contribute to an understanding of the impact that extrinsic motivation has on
performance.

5. Examination of Contextual Factors

It is essential to investigate factors that may influence the relationship between

motivation and performance. Considering elements like conditions, organizational
policies or industry specific challenges will provide a more nuanced analysis.

6. Comparative International Studies:

It would be beneficial to expand the research beyond Sweden. Include comparisons with
countries. By studying the factors that influence motivation and performance we can
gain insights into how organizational practices vary across nations.

7. Examination of Leadership Styles

There is potential in exploring the effects of leadership styles on motivation and

performance. Investigating how different approaches to leadership contribute to
establishing a climate of motivation within organizations can have an impact on
performance outcomes.

52
 Reference

1. Acakh, D. (2014). The Impact of Motivation on Employee Performance in the

Manufacturing Industry in Ghana. Global Journal of Management Studies and
Researches, 1(5), 291-310.

2. Aburumman, Z. & Arif, L. (2017). Employee voice and job satisfaction: An

application of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. International review of management and
marketing, 7(1), 150-156.

3. Adlerfer, C. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs.

Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. Vol. 4(2), 142-175.

4. Alassaf, M., & Qamar, A. M. (2022). Improving Sentiment Analysis of Arabic

Tweets by One-way ANOVA. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and
Information Sciences, 34(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2020.10.023

5. Anggapradja, I. T., & Wijaya, R. (2017). Effect of Commitment Organization,

Organizational Culture, and Motivation To Performance of Employees. Jurnal Aplikasi
Manajemen, 15(1), 74–80.

6. Aquino, D. et al. (2021). Factors Affecting employees' motivation. Article in

management sciences letters. Pp. 1063-1070.

7. Babbie, E. (2016). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Cengage Learning.

8. Balasundaram, L. (2022). Hypothesis Testing. In Introduction to Basics of

Pharmacology and Toxicology: Volume 3: Experimental Pharmacology: Research
Methodology and Biostatistics (Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5343-9_60

9. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99-120.

10. Bagozzi, R.P., Bergami, M. and Leone, L. (2003), “Hierarchical representation of

motives in goal setting”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 915-44.

11. Berdud, M., Cabasés, J. M., and Nieto, J. (2016). Incentives and intrinsic motivation
in healthcare. Gaceta Sanitaria Vol. 30, Pp. 408–414.

53
12. Brenner, V. C., Carmack, C. W., & Weinstein, M. G. (1971). An Empirical Test of
the Motivation-Hygiene Theory. Journal of Accounting Research, 9(2), 359.

13. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

14. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2013). Företagsekonomiska forskningsmetoder. Stockholm:

Liber AB.

15. Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, Jessica, M., & Ford, Michael, T. (2014). Intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008.

16. Cahill, B. A. (2011). Impact of the state practice environment on nurse practitioner
job satisfaction. PhD thesis, Health Sciences Center, University of Illinois at Chicago,
IL.

17. Cannizzaro, D., Stohl, M., Hasin, D., & Aharonovich, E. (2017). Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation predict treatment outcome in a sample of HIV+ drug user. 171 (34).

18. Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, Jessica, M., & Ford, Michael, T. (2014). Intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008.

19. Chaudhary, N. & Sharma, B. (2012). Impact of employee motivation on

performance (productivity) private organization. International Journal of Business
Trends and Technology, 2(4), 29-35.

20. Chepngetich, C. (2021). Effects of employee motivation on employee performance

in Merica Hotel in Nakuru County Kenya. Available at:
https://ir.gretsauniversity.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/20.500.12736/3712/Caroline-
Final%20project.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

21. Clutterbuck, D. and Goldsmith, W. (1984), The Winning Streak: Britain’s Top
Companies Reveal Their Formulas for Success, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

22. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

54
23. Creswell, J. W., 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. s.l.:Sage Publications.

24. Dahkoul. Z, (2018). The determinants of employees' performance in Jordanian

organizations. 5(1), Pp.11-17.

25. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.

26. Deci L, E. & Ryan M, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of
behaviour. Journal of personality and social psychology. Vol. 53, No. 6, Pp. 1024-1037.

27. Deci L, E. & Ryan M, R. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close
relationships: relationships motivation theory. Human motivation and interpersonal
relationships. Pp. 53-73.

28. Dion, M. J. (2006). The impact of workplace incivility and occupational stress on
the job satisfaction and turnover intention of acute care nurses. PhD thesis, University
of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

29. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D. & Christian, L. M., 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and
mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.

30. Donnarumma, F., Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Friston, K., & Pezzulo, G. (2017).
Action perception as hypothesis testing. Cortex, 89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.01.016

31. Dr. Islam, N. (1999). A few aspect of motivation: An overview of concepts,

theories, and techniques. Khulna University studies. 1(1), 91-96.

32. Dr. Muthuswamy, V. & Dr. Sharma, A. (2022). Motivation factors and their impact
on the performance of employees in small businesses. Vol. 10, Num. 02.

33. Edun, T., & Adenuga, O. A. (2011). Understanding Motivation: Implication for
Managers, Nigeria. International Journal of Multi-disciplinary Studies and Sport
Research, 1(1), 177-187.

55
34. Ekundayo, O. (2018). The impact of motivation on employees' performance in
selected insurance companies in Nigeria. International Journal of African Development.
V. 5, n.1.

35. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.

36. Emerson, R. W. (2022). ANOVA Assumptions. In Journal of Visual Impairment

and Blindness (Vol. 116, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221124187

37. Engidaw, A. (2021). The effects of motivation on employee engagement in public

sectors: in the case of North Wollo zone. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Available at: https://innovation-
entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-021-00185-1

38. Elegido, J. M. (2013). Does it make sense to be a loyal employee? Journal of

Business Ethics, 116(3): 495–511.

39. Emeka, N., Amaka, O. & Ejim, E.P. (2015). The Effect of Employee Motivation on
Organizational Performance of Selected Manufacturing Firms in Enugu State. World
Journal of Management and Behavioural Studies 3(1), 1-8.

40. Fahriana, C. & Sopiah, S. (2022). The influence of work motivation on employees'
performance. Asian Journal of Economics and Business Management. VOL. 1, NO. 3,
page: 229-233.

41. Fama, E.F., & Jensen, M.C. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. Journal
of Law and Economics, 26(2), 327-349.

42. Fiedler, F.E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership
process. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 59-66.

43. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research methods in the social
sciences (8th ed.). Worth Publishers.

44. Gagné, M. et al., (2022). Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-
determination theory. Nature Review Psychology. Vol. 1, Pp. 378-392.

56
45. Garrido-Lopez, G. (2023). Self-Determination Theory: How it explains motivation.
Simplypsychology. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-
determination-theory.html

46. George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1996), “Motivational agendas in the workplace: the
effects of feelings on focus of attention and motivation”, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 75-109.

47. Gerhart, B. (1990). Gender differences in current starting salaries: The role of
performance, college major and job title. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43(5),
418-433.

48. Hardoon, D. R., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2011). Sparse canonical correlation analysis.
Machine Learning, 83(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-010-5222-7

49. Hegney, D., Plank, A., & Parker, V. (2006). Extrinsic and intrinsic work values:
Their impact on job satisfaction in nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 14(4),
271–281.

50. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1993). Management of Organizational behavior:
Utilizing Human Resources, 6th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

51. Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, 81(1), 86.

52. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. New York: World Publishing.

53. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman B. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: Wiley.

54. Hitka, M., Rozsa, Z., Potkany, M., & Lizbetinova, L. (2019). Factors forming
employee motivation influenced by regional and age-related differences. Journal of
Business Economic Management, 20(4), 674-693.

55. House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 16(2), 322.

56. Howell, D. C. (2013). Statistical Methods for Psychology (8th ed.). Cengage
Learning.
57
57. Huang et al., (2019). An investigation of motivation and experience in virtual
learning environments: a self-administered theory. Education and Information
Technology. 24(2), Pp. 1-21.

58. Jones, T. L. (2011). Effects of motivating and hygiene factors on job satisfaction
among school nurses. PhD thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

59. Kacel, B., Miller, M., & Norris, D. (2005). Measurement of nurse practitioner job
satisfaction in a Midwestern state. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse
Practitioners, 17, 27–32.

60. Kumar, S., & Chong, I. (2018). Correlation Analysis to Identify the Effective Data
in Machine Learning: Prediction of Depressive Disorder and Emotion States. IJERPH,
15(12), 1-24.

61. Kuswati, Y. (2020). The effects of motivation on employees' performance. Budapest

International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI Journal) Humanities and Social
Sciences. 3(2). Pp. 995-1002.

62. Legault, L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory.

63. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 125-152.

64. Locke, E.A. and Henne, D. (1986), “Work motivation theories”, in Cooper, D.C.
and Robertson, I. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 1-35.

65. Lephalala, R. (2006). Factors influencing nursing turnover in selected private

hospitals in England. Master’s thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South
Africa.

66. Manganelli, L. et al., (2018). Self-determination theory can help generate employee
performance and well-being in the workplace: A review of the literature. Advances in
Developing Human Resources. Vol. 20(2) page: 227-240.

67. Manzoor, Q.A. (2012). Impact of employees' motivation on organizational

effectiveness. Business Management and Strategy, 3(1), 1-12.

58
68. Mitchell, J. (2009). Job satisfaction and burnout among foreign-trained nurses in
Saudi Arabia: A mixed-method study. PhD thesis, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

69. Mosquera, P., Soares, M. E., and Oliveira, D. (2020). Do intrinsic rewards matter
for real estate agents? J. Eur. Real Estate Res.Vol. 13, Pp. 207–222.

70. Muogbo, Uju S. (2013). The influence of motivation on employee performance: A

study of some selected firms in Anambra State. An International Journal of Arts and
Humanities Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Vol. 2(3), Pp. 134-151.

71. MuseAliGeelmaale, A. (2019). Impact of employee motivation on organizational

performance. International Journal of Advance Research. Vol. 7(10), Pp. 166-172.

72. Ndudi, F. et., (2023). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in workers'
productivity: Empirical Evidence from the construction industry. Vol.11, No.2, pp. 96-
112.

73. Nanyombi, F. (2018). Intrinsic motivation and employee performance: A case of

Pride Microfinance LTD.

74. Nguyen, M. L. (2017). The Impact of Employees Motivation on Organizational

Effectiveness. Vaasa University of Applied Sciences. Retrieved from
[https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/138260](https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/13
8260).

75. Peretti, J. M., & Igalens, J. (2015). Dictionnaire des ressources humaines (7th ed.):
110. Vuibert.

76. Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
America’s Best-run Companies. Harper & Row, New York, NY.

77. Rambur, B., Mclntosh, B., Palumbo, M. V., & Reinier, K. (2005). Education as a
determinant of career retention and job satisfaction among registered nurses. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 37(2), 185–192.

78. Rachman, M. (2022). The impact of motivation on performance: The role of

organizational commitment. Journal of Theory and Applied Management. Volume
15(3), Pp. 376-393.

59
79. Rafiq, M., Javed, M., Khan, M., & Ahmed, M. (2012). Effect of rewards on job
satisfaction evidence from Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, Vol. 4, Pp. 337-347.

80. Rahman, K. U., Akhter, W., & Khan, S. U. (2017). Factors affecting employee job
satisfaction: A comparative study of conventional and Islamic insurance. Cogent
Business & Management, 4(1).

81. Ryan, R. & Deci, E., 2017. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs
in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford.

82. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

83. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological
needs in motivation, development, and wellness.

84. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation from a self-
administered theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions.
Contemporary Educated Psychology. Vol. 61, 101860.

85. Shaikh, S. & Shaikh, H. (2019). Using Herzberg's theory to develop the employees'
performance of Rafhan Maize Industry. International Journal of Management. Vol. 10,
Pp. 1-7.

86. Sharma, D. (2016). A Study on Employee Motivation in Private School: A Case of

Bethany Boarding Higher Secondary School (BHSS) Pokhara. Journal of Nepalese
Business Studies, 9(1), p.91.

87. Shadare, O. A., & Hammed, T. A. (2009). Influence of work motivation, leadership
effectiveness and time management on employees’ performance in some selected
industries in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. European Journal of Economics, Finance and
Administrative Sciences, 16, 7-17.

88. Singh, D. (2023). A quantitative study of motivation and employee performance in

Spartao Oy. International business.

60
89. Stella, O. (2008). Motivation and Work Performance: Complexities in Achieving
Good Performance Outcomes; A Study Focusing on Motivation Measures and
Improving Workers Performance in Kitgum District Local Government. Institute of
Social Studies. Pp. 1-83, 2008.

90. Stello, C. M. (2011). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction: An integrative

literature review. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1-32.

91. Stumpf, S. A., Tymon, W. G., Favorito, N., and Smith, R. R. (2013). Employees and
change initiatives: intrinsic rewards and feeling valued. J. Bus. Strateg. Vol. 34, Pp. 21–
29.

92. Sugiarto, S., & Putra, I. G. S. (2020). The role of communication climate on the
performance of PT. Lazada Express Bandung employees with work motivation as an
intervening variable. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science
(2147-4478), 9(5), 160–165.

93. Syptak, J. M., Marsland, D. W., & Ulmer, D. (1999). Job Satisfaction: Putting
Theory Into Practice. Family Practice Management, 6(9), 26–30.

94. Tamam, M. & Sopiah (2022). The effect of worker motivation and employee
performance. International Journal of Law Policy and Governance. Vol. 1(2).

95. Team Stage, (2020). Monumental Motivation Statistics for 2021. Retrieved from
TeamStage website: https://teamstage.io/motivation-statistics/

96. Timmreck, T. C. (2001). Managing motivation and developing job satisfaction in

the healthcare work environment. Healthcare Manager, 20(1), 42–58.

97. Tymon Jr, W. G., Stumpf, S. A., and Doh, J. P. (2010). Exploring talent
management in India: the neglected role of intrinsic rewards. J. World Bus. Vol. 45, Pp.
109–121.

98. Van den Broeck et al., (2016). A review of self-determination theory basics
Psychology needs at work. Journal of Management. 42(5).

99. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. Wiley, New York, NY.

61
100. Zameer, H., Ali, S., Nisar, W. & Amir, M. (2014). The impact of the motivation on
the employee’s performance in the beverage industry of Pakistan. International Journal
of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 4(1), 293-
298.

62
9. Appendix A: survey Questions.

63
64
65
66
67
9.Appendix A: survey Responses

68
69
70
71
72
73