The effectiveness of money as a motivation for academic institutions. An assessment

Bachelor Thesis, 2016

60 Pages, Grade: 1.0










1.1 Introduction of the Study
1.2 Background of the problem
1.3 Statement of the problem
1.4 General objective of the study
1.5 Specific objectives of the study
1.6 Research questions
1.7 Significance of the study
1.8 The scope of the study
1.9 The limitations of the study
1.10 The theoretical framework

2.1 Theoretical literature review
2.2 The concept and meaning of motivation
2.3 The key elements of motivation
2.4 The type and nature of motivation
2.5 Work-Motivation theories,
2.6 The empirical literature review

3.1 Research design
3.2 Area of the study
3.3 Population of the study
3.4 Sampling procedures and sample size
1. Sampling procedures
2. Sample size
3.5 Data source
3.6 Data collection methods
3.7 Instrumentation
3.8 Data analysis
3.9 Limitations and delimitations
3.10 Time frame
3.11 Budget

4.1 Data analysis and presentation
4.2 Introduction
4.3 Profile of Respondents
4.4 Respondent’s Level of intrinsic motivation toward the job
4.5 Assessing Academic staff’s demotivators at TUDARCo
4.6 Academic staff’s motivation packages at TUDARCo
4.7 Assessing the Effectiveness of Employee motivators
4.8 Money and Motivation
4.9 Effectiveness of money as motivator
4.10 Discussion of findings
4.11 The main causes of demotivation for academic staff at TUDARCo?
4.12 The common motivation packages offered to academic staff at TUDARCo
4.13 Effectiveness of extrinsic motivators compared to intrinsic motivators
4.14 Employees’ perception in regard to money and motivation
4.15 Effectiveness of money in motivation compared to other motivators

5.1 Summary of the study
5.2 General Conclusions
5.3 Recommendations
5.4 Limitations of this study and recommendations for future studies


Appendix I: Academic staff’s questionnaire
Appendix II: Management interview questions


Copyright © 2016

This research paper is copyright protected under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886, as latest amended in Paris Act of 1979, which Tanzania become party to the convention in 1994 and other international enactments, in that behalf, an intellectual property.

It may not be reproduced or stored by any means, electrical or mechanical, and in full or in part, except for short extracts in fair dealing, for research or private study, critical scholarly review or discourse with acknowledgements, without written permission of the Dean, Faculty of Business Administration, on behalf of both the Author and Tumaini University – Dar es Salaam College.


I dedicate this research paper to my family for loving me unconditionally and for their dedicated efforts in support of my entire academic life.


It’s in great efforts that this research project has been accomplished. My first and foremost acknowledgement goes to God Almighty, who without failing has always supplied me with health, hope and passion in my academic endeavors, in this am forever grateful.

I would also like to express gratitude to my research supervisor Mr. Felix Emmanuel for patiently assisting me in my research report.

My final acknowledgement goes to the management and academic staff of Tumaini University Dar es Salaam College for allowing me to conduct a case study and for their responses to my research inquiries.


Employee motivation was defined as by Torrington (2008) “an effort or drive that an individual puts into an activity”. This research paper investigated the effectiveness of money as motivator for academic staff in higher learning institutions. The subjects of the study were 26 workers of Tumaini University Dar es Salaam College, the subjects were divided into two groups; senior management and academic staff, 25 questionnaires were issued to academic staff and an interview was conducted with principal human resource officer. In spite of other relevant theories, the study was keenly guided by the Herzberg two-factor theory that argued “trying to use money is an inferior way to motivate an employee”.

Quantitative and qualitative techniques of data analysis were employed. The findings of the study revealed that the effectiveness of money as motivator for academic staff was limited or affected by some motivating factors and not affected or unlimited by others. In the concern of the implications, the limitations and suggestions for future research studies, they are discussed in the final chapter.


Table 1.0 Description of Respondents' Gender

Table 2.0 Description of Respondents' Age

Table 3.0 Description of Respondents' Education

Table 4.0 Description of Respondents' Work Experience

Table 5.0 Demotivators' Frequencies (For Multiple responses)

Table 6.0 Work Autonomy

Table 7.0 Work Recognition

Table 8.0 Equal and Fair Treatment

Table 9.0 Monetary Incentives

Table 10.0 Opportunity for Advancement

Table 11.0 Increased recognition with reduced monetary reward

Table 12.0 Reduced recognition with increased monetary reward

Table 13.0 High growth opportunity with low monetary reward

Table 14.0 Low growth opportunity with high monetary reward

Table 15.0 High Job flexibility with low monetary reward

Table 16.0 Low Job flexibility with high monetary reward

Table 17.0 Undesirable Students' class with high monetary reward

Table 18.0 Desirable Students' class with low monetary reward


Figure 1 Theoretical framework

Figure 2 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Figure 3 Question 5 of Part 1, Is Teaching Exciting?

Figure 4 Ranking academic staff's demotivators

Figure 5 Question 4 Part 2, does money motivate

Figure 6 Demotivation factors

Figure 7 Ranking employees' motivators


illustration not visible in this excerpt



This chapter consists of the introduction of the study, background of the problem, statement of the problem, general and specific research objectives, research questions, significance of the study, scope of the study, limitation of the study and theoretical framework

1.1 Introduction of the Study

Human Resources are the most important resources in any work organization. In the definition of Human Resource Management, Armstrong (2006) points out people working in an organization as “organization’s most valued assets”. People are common and essential elements in every organization; they perform tasks, organize works and make vital decisions that run the organizations. Without people organizations cannot exist, and without motivated ones, their performances will predictably fail.

In any organization’s settings, where work is clearly organized toward achievement of organizational objectives and its man power adequately trained, it’s impossible to negate the Notion that “Motivation is most important factor for employee’s productivity, as well as organizational performance”. Organizations getting more from its employees necessitate the employees to give more to the organization, but for employees to give more there are two factors to be adequately considered, according to Decenzo (2013) “one’s performance in an organization is a function of two factors: ability and willingness to do the job”. Concerning the ability of employees, the case is less complex and can to a good percent be covered well in recruitment, training and development, as well as employee empowerment. But for employee’s willingness, especially when we want it to endure in an ultra-competitive business environment, things get complex and this is where concept of motivation resides.

The word motivation is generally used to reflect the effort or drive that an individual puts into an activity (Torrington, 2008). It’s that generated force, whether intrinsic or extrinsic that pushes an individual to do their best. The importance of motivation is unquestionable, Kovach (1987:58) research quoted by Mwenilelo (2012) research on motivation, “Management expectation was achieved in most western industries particularly in the Pittsburgh areas of America due to high motivation which results in the individuals concentrating on higher levels of accomplishment and focusing behavior on reaching objectives”. In spite of more recent attention to commitment, motivation is still considered to be an important influence on performance (Torrington, 2008).

1.2 Background of the problem

According to Decenzo (2013), the motivation function is one of the most important yet probably the least understood aspects of HRM Process. Human behavior is complex, and trying to figure out what motivates various employees has long been a concern of behavioral scientists. All organizations are ultimately concerned with what should be done to motivate employees so as to achieve sustained high levels of performance through people -- motivated people (Armstrong, 2006). Since the identification of Motivation as an important ingredient for performance, looking closely to what motivates employees has been a long quest for the organizational management.

Initially, the instrumentality theory of Frederick Taylor of 1911 was received with great interest and its systematic views on work and performance still influence HRM Process even today (Decenzo, 2013). Frederick Taylor once argued that if monetary rewards are tied to the efforts put on jobs, then employees would respond with the maximum capability (Utouh, 2000). He explained it in what he called “systematic soldering” (Dessler, 2013). His theory provoked Humanists such as Hugo Munsterberg and Mary Parker Follet in the Human Relation Era (Decenzo, 2013). The theory felt too mechanistic, not regarding humans as complex living and social beings as Elton Mayo viewed (Torrington, 2005). And such that tying a human to the struggle for money reduced his dignity. Although theories such as; Maslow’s Hierarchy (Maslow, 1943) and McGregor’s X and Y (McGregor, 1960) had already argued with the Taylor’s mechanistic link between money and employee motivation, it’s the notorious Herzberg two-factor theory that beheaded the “money-motivation concept”, He argued that; - “Adding more of these hygienes (like incentives) to the job is an inferior way to try to motivate someone, because lower-level needs are quickly satisfied. Soon the person simply says, in effect, what have you done for me lately?” (Dessler, 2013, p. 394).

Armstrong (2006) also said that “doubts have been cast by Herzberg et al (1957) on the effectiveness of money because, they claimed, while the lack of it can cause dissatisfaction, its provision does not result in lasting satisfaction” (p. 267).

But the case of money is or isn’t a motivator wasn’t yet solved, Herzberg like many others wasn’t without critics (Armstrong, 2006) though that isn’t our topic, it shades a light of the contradictions that are echoing around, for example; - The Elton Mayo (Hawthorne) Studies of 1920s had findings that suggested informal work groups where more important than wage incentive plans (Decenzo, 2013). While Goldthorpe et al (1968) from their research into the “affluent worker”, which concluded pay is the dominant factor in the choice of employer and considerations of pay seem most powerful in binding people to their present job.

In another research study on motivation conducted in China “a case study of Credit-West Bank Cyprus” by Uzonna (2013) Concluded that; - when it comes to bringing out the best performance of employees, growth opportunities and challenges, recognition and non-cash rewards are more effective motivators than money. While Armstrong (2006) argued “Do financial incentives motivate people? The answer is yes” (p. 267) as it’s often said what gets rewarded gets done (Torrington, 2008, p. 67).


In the mid of social dilemmas, especially in the cases of religious and moral ethics or in the quest for freedom against the tyranny of capitalism – in our work life, the Herzberg theory will always be academically alluring and pleasantly humanistic. And this is why; first it appeals to the Protestant (religious) ethics (Armstrong, 2006, p. 263), upholding the dignity of labor as back in the days of Carlyle and Ruskin against the economic world of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” (Cate, 1985). Secondly, its simplistic nature that avoided academic abstractions made it easy to understand, and finally its affiliation to the highly respected ideas of Maslow and McGregor, paves a quick way for its academic acceptability (Armstrong, 2006). Added to our craving for sanity, trying to be reasonable in all things especially with good judgment, and so, wanting to disqualify money as a driving force is very reasonable for every rational mind.

1.3 Statement of the problem

The case for “money is or isn’t a motivator” hasn’t started with Frederick Herzberg, it date even back to the history of economics and capitalism (Solow, 1985) Where the science of money has been considered the “Gospel of Mammon”, “dismal science” as in the letters of Carlyle and Ruskin, (Cate, 1982). Even though it’s has been quit now and we enjoy seemingly stable industrial relations unlike the 18th Century, the case for using money as motivator has been the conventional wisdom in our society (Kohn (2007), regardless of different academics claiming the otherwise. And this has torn apart our academically rich theories from inevitable organizational practices, leaving our Strategic Human Resource Management Approach striving endlessly to balance between the “Power of Money” and “Academic Acumen”.

In a survey of about 262 U.S. Organizations having a minimum of 1,000 employees, the five top reasons high commitment/top-performing employees gave for leaving (ranking from high to low), the first was pay, and the second was promotion-which in a normal mind of any employee; “it’s very likely to think of it not only as recognition but also a chance for pay upgrade” (Dessler, 2013, p. 323)

The survey above reveals “the undeniable influence of money at workplaces” just like what Armstrong (2006) Claimed “Money provides the means to achieve a number of different ends. It is a powerful force because it is linked directly or indirectly to the satisfaction of many needs” (p.267). Although some theories still object the significance of money in motivation.

Contradictions will never end for the fact that we are living in a real world and not a conceptual or utopian one, and always our research findings will eventually align with either of the two groups; - those who perceive motivation as a “self-individual process within a person” such as McGregor, Maslow and Herzberg, with money having little to no influence, or those who perceive motivation as a “management process outside a person” such as F. Taylor, V. Vroom and F. Skinner (Dessler, 2013) with money having a significant influence. As at the end our key management problem on whether money is or isn’t a motivator will not be solved. The problem shouldn’t be on whether “money motivates or it doesn’t”, for money will motivate one person and fail to motivate the other, or even fail to motivate the very same person at different times and in different cases (Armstrong, 2006).

The concept of “what specifically motivates an employee” is misguided for there is no single answer (Mullins, 2010), for the fact the behavior is too unpredictable (Robbins, 2013), and therefore; qualifying or disqualifying money as a motivator can’t be generalized, it has at least to be narrowed down to specified and well understood constraints, to realize the value it possess in right circumstances (Armstrong, 2006, p. 268). It’s wiser then to develop less generalized research studies, with conclusions confined within the contexts of specified business situations, which might predominantly influence the very nature and order of employee’s behavior in a particular given circumstances.

Those situations could be; - the nature and type of the business, the nature of the industry i.e. levels of competitions in labor markets, the type and nature of the job, as well as geographical boarders that could define people’s knowledge and culture, and therefore affecting the employee’s prospects as to what he/she values. This will be the researcher’s approach in tackling the unresolved contradictions on the effectiveness of money upon employee motivation. The existing research gap for lack of such constrained un-generalized study in Tanzania with applicable findings concerning specified business environment, propelled the researcher to conduct this research.

1.4 General objective of the study

The major objective of this study was to assess with clarity the effectiveness of money as motivator for academic staff in higher learning institutions in Tanzania.

1.5 Specific objectives of the study

1. Understand the key causes of demotivation for academic staff at TUDARCo
2. Identify the ways/approaches used by TUDARCo to motivate its academic staff
3. Elaborating the relationship between money and employee motivation for academic staff in higher learning institutions

1.6 Research questions

This research study was guided by the following the research questions;

1. What are the main causes of demotivation for academic staff at TUDARCo?
2. What are the common motivation packages offered to academic staff at TUDARCo?
3. How effective are extrinsic motivators compared to intrinsic motivators for academic staff in higher learning institution?
4. What is the employees’ perception in regard to money and motivation?
5. To what extent does the increase of money positively affect motivation for academic staff, compared to other factors?

1.7 Significance of the study

This research study is going to have the following significance;

1. Increase to the body of knowledge concerning employee motivation in Human Resource Management.
2. Provide feedback to the institution about the effectiveness of its motivational practices, and therefore determine the type of employee motivation packages it could best use to motivate its teaching workforce.
3. The research findings fill the research gap on the subject “the effectiveness of money as motivator specifically for academic staff in higher learning institutions in Tanzania”
4. The Approach and Knowledge drawn from this research study propels and instigates the need for even more research studies that are constrained to specific business situations that could minimize the contradictions in the subject of “money and motivation”.
5. The Evaluations done in this research provides an empirical framework for further additional enquiries of the nearly same studies.
6. The Researcher will be able to apply the theoretical knowledge obtained from the study in solving practical management problems in Human Resource Management.
7. This research study provides a referencing material to other continuing students in their study on the subject of motivation.

1.8 The scope of the study

This research study was conducted at Tumaini University Dar es Salaam College (TUDARCo), in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Its study scope is limited to the departments of academic staff at the organization on case study. Both management and academic staff from different academic departments were picked to give opinions by answering specified questions or even explain different phenomena from their own viewpoint.

Due to the approach as well as time limit, our research study was concentrated more to the following study areas;

- The motivational packages used by the organization in motivating academic staff.
- The effectiveness of those such motivational packages
- Contributions of money in the process of motivating the teaching workforce in higher learning institution.
- The general perception of academic staff on “money as a motivator”

1.9 The limitations of the study

In the course of doing this research study, the researcher faced the following constraint;

1. Time Limit, the researcher had only two months until the research work was submitted. The time specified for the research study wasn’t enough to accomplish certain tasks; therefore, the researcher was forced to narrow down the study so that to match the proposed time.
2. Financial Constraint, the fixed monetary budget proposed to cover the expenses in the research study, didn’t reflect the actual amounts that the researcher incurred during carrying out the research project.
3. Reluctant Response, another constraint that the researcher faced was reluctant responses from respondents which were mainly due to employees’ busyness. So the researcher did face inconveniences retrieval of data

1.10 The theoretical framework

Motivation according to Torrington (2008) it’s the effort or drive that an individual puts into an activity. The process of motivation is affected by several factors; Herzberg classified those factors into two groups, the Motivators and Hygiene Factors (Mullins, 2010) iconed as intrinsic and extrinsic factors in Luthans (2011). Hygiene (extrinsic) factors of motivation includes; working conditions, supervision, policies, administration and salary (monetary rewards), while Motivators (intrinsic factors) includes; opportunity for advancement, responsibility, achievement, challenging, appreciation and recognition (Robbins, 2013), (Dessler, 2013) and (Luthans, 2011).

In this study, the researcher focused in assessing the effectiveness of money as a motivator in work organizations as discussed by Armstrong (2006, p.267), by examining the contribution of money toward motivating academic staff in higher learning institutions.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1 Theoretical framework



This chapter consists of theoretical and empirical literature concerning the subject of the research study

2.1 Theoretical literature review

2.2 The concept and meaning of motivation

According to Armstrong (2006) “Motivation as concerned with the factors that influence people to behave in certain ways” (p. 252), Different authors however, have defined motivation in many different ways. Torrington (2008) identified it as effort or drive that an individual puts into an activity. Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) argued that “Motivation” is “A combination of goals towards which human behavior is directed; the process through which those goals are pursued and achieved and the social factors involved”.

Whatever it’s defined, Motivation according to Robbins (2013) mainly consist of three key elements; first the effort, second the direction, and third the persistence exerted to achieve a specified goal.

2.3 The key elements of motivation

In the definition of motivation by Robbins (2013) “as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.” it identified the key elements in the process of motivation.

1. Intensity or Effort – how hard a person is trying; the question here is “how hard are you trying to achieve it?” Its concerned with a force or pressure exerted in an activity
2. Direction – what a person is trying achieving; here, the question is “what are you trying to achieve? And is it linked to the goal?” Direction is the channel of the effort toward achieving a specified goal
3. Persistence – how long a person maintains the same quality of effort exerted in a job; the question here is “for how long will you keep on trying without giving up?”

Together, these components form a behavior drive that we perceive as motivation.

2.4 The type and nature of motivation

Armstrong, (2006) Says, “Motivation at work can take place in two ways. First, people can motivate themselves by seeking, finding and carrying out work (or being given work) that satisfies their needs or at least leads them to expect that their goals will be achieved. Secondly, people can be motivated by management through such methods as pay, promotion, praise, etc”. (p. 253). Motivation is a complex subject and is influenced by many variables. Individuals have variety of changing and often conflicting needs and expectation, which they attempt satisfying them in number of different ways.

As also identified by Mullin (2010), we can categorize motivation into two major types; intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation.

1. Intrinsic motivation – this is the motivation within a person (Decenzo, 2013), rather than externally applied motivator. It’s a “self-individual process within” and therefore it differs with people, thus highly depending on a person’s behavior. The factors here are intangible and highly psychological (Mullins, 2010), thus they don’t have any physical tangible benefit. They include responsibility, autonomy (freedom to act), scope to use and develop skills and abilities, interesting and challenging work and opportunities for advancement (Armstrong, 2006). This is the motivation developed by an individual from within.

2. Extrinsic motivation –Armstrong (2006) says this encompasses “what is done to or for people to motivate them”. This includes tangible rewards that are externally administered to improve behavior (Mullins, 2010), for example; fringe benefits, increased pay, working environment, conditions of work or promotion, and even punishments, such as disciplinary action, withholding pay, or criticism (Armstrong, 2006).This is the motivation pushed by external drivers such as tangible rewards and punishment, therefore perceived as a management process.

2.5 Work-Motivation theories,

Several theories have been put forward to explain the concept on attaining motivation at the workplace. These theories are divided to either instrumentality, content or process theories, (Armstrong, 2006) These theories serve us with an understanding unto the subject of motivation, and at least being partially true they can help in explaining the behavior of certain people at certain times (Mullins, 2010).

1. Instrumentality Theory of Skinner and Taylor

A Psychologist named B. F. Skinner was pioneer of the concept of conditioning. In the theory, he emphasized that people can be “conditioned” to act in certain ways if they are rewarded for behaving as required, it’s also called the law of effect (Armstrong, 2006). This is what came to be referred as behavioral modification, a process by which individual’s behavior is affected through either positive or negative reinforcement. Taylor’s Scientific Management theory emerged in the 19th Century, pioneered by F.W. Taylor, it emphasized on the need to rationalize work and on economic outcomes, assuming that a person will be motivated to work if rewards and penalties are tied directly to his or her performance (Armstrong, 2006). Taylor observed a tendency of workers working at the slowest pace possible, and therefore producing at a minimum acceptable level, especially when these workers had to run to their homes even after twelve hours of work (Dessler, 2013).

Taylor knew that if he could harness this energy at work, Midvale could achieve huge productivity gains. So Taylor turned to financial rewards, which had a great impact in improving the primitive and arbitrary wage systems at the time. It is Taylor who introduced the concept of fair day’s work and popularized the use of incentives to reward employee’s over-produce. Most of Taylor’s ideas on scientific management are still applicable even today. Because the use of monetary incentive required managers to understand the law of effect, Skinner’s Theory dissolved inside Taylorism (Armstrong, 2006), and came to be referred as the Instrumentality theory.

2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Although the author Abraham Maslow had no any intention for the theory “Hierarchy of needs” to be applied directly to motivation in work organizations (Luthans, 2011), His theory is profoundly the most influential theory in the subject of motivation. The theory quoted as “the most famous classification of needs” in Armstrong (2006), featured “the best known theory” in Robbins (2013) and proposed to be “widely quoted” by Dessler (2013).

Until about 20 years after Abraham had proposed the theory, it was Douglas McGregor who popularized the “Hierarchy of needs” in the management literature with his widely read book “The Human Side of the Enterprise” (Luthans, 2011). The Maslow’s Theory “Hierarchy of needs” identifies humans as wanting beings possessing needs which are hierarchal in nature. In his theory the needs where categorized in five hierarchal order, starting with; physiological, security or safety, social (belonging), self-esteem, and self-actualization. This meant, once a lower level need is satisfied it’s no longer a motive and person upgrades his/her expectation to even higher needs.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The levels of needs in Maslow’s Hierarchy, as identified by Luthans (2011)

1. Physiological needs – this is the first and the basic level of needs, it constitutes of all human needs that are resulted due to the physical processes of the body, such as due to the nature the human body behaves. Example; the need for oxygen, shelter, sleep, food, water, and sex.
2. Safety needs – this is the second level and it consists of the need for protection against any perceived danger or the deprivation of any of the physiological needs.
3. Social needs – at this level, the intermediate level. A person becomes more concerning about belonging, affection and affiliation, it results the need for love, affection and acceptance as belonging to a particular group.
4. Self-Esteem – the need to have a stable, firmly based, high evaluation of oneself (self-esteem) and to have the respect of others (prestige). It has been considered to be representing the elevation needs of humans. It constitutes issues like confidence, independence and freedom, reputation, recognition, attention, power, influence, status and appreciation.
5. Self-fulfillment (self-actualization) – it’s the need to develop to the full potential, the culmination of all other lower needs. Maslow see it as “What humans can be, must be” or “becoming everything that one is capable of becoming” (Mullins, 2010). Self-actualization may take different form from one person to another, emphasizing on individual aspiration on becoming the best that individual can be.

3. Herzberg Two-factor theory

This theory was developed by Frederick Herzberg, and unlike Maslow’s it was based on a motivational study of about 200 employees in firms around Pittsburg (Mullins, 2010). Herzberg used the critical incidence method, and by tabulating on where these employees felt good or bad concerning their job experience and job context, he concluded that; the job satisfiers are related to job content, and job dissatisfies are related to the job context (Luthans, 2011). These two factors are now known as Hygiene factors and Motivators.

1. Hygiene Factors, this represented the context of job, staff that employees are would want them present on a job but they don’t by themselves motivate. Hygiene or Maintenance factors are termed to be “lower-level “needs, and they constitute of factors outside the job, such as working conditions, salary, work tools, monetary incentives, interpersonal relations and administration. Herzberg argued that, even though the lack of these leads to dissatisfaction, adding more of these is an inferior way to motivate someone (Dessler, 2013).

2. Motivators, unlike the hygiene factors, these represented the content of the job. They are termed as intrinsic factors. According to Dessler (2013) intrinsic motivation is motivation that derives from the pleasure someone gets from doing the job or task. It comes from within the person, rather than from some externally applied motivator. Examples of Herzberg’s ‘intrinsic factors’ denoted as motivators includes job issues such as; advancement, recognition, autonomy, responsibility and achievement (Robbins, 2013).

Herzberg argued that factors that lead to job satisfaction “the motivators” are separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction “the hygiene factor”, he argued that the opposite of dissatisfaction is “no dissatisfaction” and not “satisfaction” and the vice versa, that proposed a dual continuum (Robbins, 2013). Herzberg argued that using money is an inferior way to motivate a person (Dessler, 2013). According to Armstrong (2006), Mullins (2010), Robbins (2013) and Luthans (2011) the Herzberg’s theory of motivation is marked to closely relate to the ideas of McGregor and Maslow.

2.6 The empirical literature review

Different research studies have suggested differently concerning the subject of “what constitute the motivation of employees”. The first profound study that casted first doubts on the use of money as a motivator is the famous Hawthorne Studies conducted at the western electrical plant in Chicago, USA in 1924. Initially the Hawthorne study was set to examine the relationship between the physical environment and employee productivity, the study started by focusing on the illumination effect at the work place. In the illumination study, the case of light intensity proved inconsistent with productivity but rather something uncontrolled seemed to be significantly affecting productivity, this observation is known as “serendipitous discovery” and from then series of Hawthorne studies were conducted. However, it was the third study, in the bank wiring observation room that introduced to study the effect of a sophisticated wage incentive plan, and it was then the output become controlled by group norms and this has been rendered mostly “incentive plans ineffective”, and so it was concluded that employees are not solely motivated by money but work groups, and that social relations had a profound and a very significant effect (Cambridge, Witton and Elbourne, 2013).

However according to the analytical study in the context of explaining the Hawthorne effect by Levitt and List (2011), making it clear that “We do see evidence that workers, over a longer time horizon, appear to respond positively to experimentation”. A behavioral pattern where individuals respond certain ways due only to event “experiment” not variable tasted. Just as during the Hawthorne research as it was then determined that a group operating well below its capability and leveling output was in fact to protect itself.

Although the Elton Mayo “Hawthorne” studies induced this group psychology as the group members helped one another to ensure their reports were nearly level, Bond and Smith (1996) study on culture and conformity; using Asch’s studies proved the existences of group inconformity that is possible across and due to culture diversity. Since then different research studies have debated on various factors that motivate employees at workplaces.

According to the research study on work motivation and performance conducted in Finland by Ndang (2010), the researcher writes “Based on the findings and looking at the mental process of the employees, higher wages for employees will spur their motivation for higher performance” that although people have different needs but the majority of the respondents seemingly agreed that once they are paid well their motivation to greater performance increases.

The same exhibits In the intensive survey study on reasons on work disengagement in United States, where about 262 U.S. Companies having a minimum of 1,000 employees were surveyed, and the five top reasons high commitment/top-performing employees gave for disengaging (ranking from high to low), the first was pay, and the second was promotion -which in a normal mind of any employee; “it’s very likely to think of it not only as recognition but also a chance for pay upgrade”, surveys(as cited in Dessler, 2013, p. 323).

In the study conducted in Nigeria on the influences of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation by Ayobami (n.d) yields the very same results, the study surveyed 100 employees of Flour Mills PLC, and based on findings the researcher concluded that “The importance of reward in the day-to-day performance of worker’s duties cannot be over emphasized, especially when it comes to being rewarded for a job done. It is a well-known fact that human performance of any sort is improved by increase in motivation. Going by the findings of this study, it can be easily inferred that workers reward package matters a lot and should be a concern of both the employers and employees”.

In Contrast to the findings above; the study on the impact of motivation on employee’s performance at the CreditWest bank Beijing, China identified the impacts of both monetary and non-monetary variables on motivation and in conclusion the researcher writes “our research and interviews have confirmed that the use of non-cash rewards can be an effective and cost-efficient way to motivate employees, and the majority of our survey respondents agree with this statement. In conclusion, when it comes to bringing out the best performance of employees, growth opportunities and challenges, recognition and non-cash rewards are more effective motivators than money” (Uzonna, 2013).

In addressing the same question “does money motivate?” in the article “Challenging behavioral dogma, Kohn (2007) argues; - “The most important point to be made here is that this is a very different question from the first one. Even if money matters more -- and to more people -- than I think it does, that is by no means tantamount to showing that it motivates people. By one definition, nothing can meaningfully be said to "motivate" people.

To harmonize the conflicting opinions of various research findings and academicians, the adaption of less-generalized studies that suggests limited applicability of research findings, though those findings be scope-time constrained, they could be somehow useful to our general understanding on the subject of money and motivation. Example; The Caribbean hotel worker’s research study conducted by Charles & Marshall (1992), tested different suggested variables that affect employee motivation including that of Elton Mayo “social relationships of workers and their supervisors”, but as per findings It was one of the least important factor to Caribbean hotel workers. The study also checked about the effect of gender and found out that Caribbean males working in hotels responded highly to wages than females.

Another hotel workers’ motivation study was conducted in Hong Kong with findings that suggested female workers at the Hong Kong hotels preferred interesting work, feeling involved and good working condition ((Wong, Siu, & Tsang, 1999). Another constrained study was conducted at Orlando FL, United States and unlike the first, this study was comparing between tipped and non-tipped hotel worker’s motivation. Those in non-tipped positions intrinsic factors such as promotion, interesting work and manager’s recognition seemed to be more important, while those in tipped positions extrinsic factors such as working conditions, job security and good wages where ranked as more important (Johnson, 2005).

In Tanzania, such un-generalized motivational study was conducted at Muhimbili Referral Hospital titled “motivation of health care workers in Tanzania” and the findings revealed the three major reasons for de-motivation, which were; low salaries, problems in working conditions and inadequacy of facilities for performing tasks (Leshabari, Muhondwa, Mwangu & Mbembati, 2008).And in contrast with the causal-notions of widely spread teachers’ strikes rumors and reports that we think, the research that examined the effectiveness of motivational factors for secondary teachers at Nyamagana Public schools in Mwanza, concluded that the majority of teachers were in fact motivated by intrinsic factors and only few of them favored extrinsic factors such as pay as their motivator (Mruma, 2013). Like such un-generalized research studies and in contrast from them, the researcher conducted a motivational study that examines the effectiveness of money as a motivator for the case of academic staff in higher learning institutions in Tanzania.



This chapter consists of the research design, area of the study and population of the study, sampling procedure and sampling size, data sources, data collection methods, data analysis, instrumentation, limitation and delimitation, time frame and budget.

3.1 Research design

In this descriptive research, the researcher employed a case study approach in order to gain rich understanding into the context of the research problem within a target field, developing skills of evaluating data and synthesizing ideas. Such studies usually go deep into the causes of things or events that interest us, using very small samples and very deep probing data gathering devices (Kothari, 2004). It’s essentially an intensive investigation on a particular unit under study. Using the case study approach helped the researcher to produce accurate representation of the targeted population.

3.2 Area of the study

The area in which the researcher conducted this research study is Tumaini University Dar es Salaam College (TUDARCo), located in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, with a minimum of about 101 employees, 50% of which being the academic staff. In spite of TUDARCo being a vigorously growing private institution for higher learning in Tanzania ‘which of course could imply the presence of untamed motivation which adds to the criteria of the direction of this research, but the key reason as to why the researcher choose specifically that area to conduct such a study is the convenience, accessibility, flexibility and cost-efficiency that the researcher can easily take advantage of, adding up to efficiency and effectiveness in conducting this study.

3.3 Population of the study

The targeted population enquired in this research includes the management of TUDARCo and the academic staff at a proportion stated in the sample size.

3.4 Sampling procedures and sample size

According to Kothari (2004), sampling procedures is a definite plan determined before any data are actually collected for obtaining a sample from a given population. It consists of methods/tools that enable the researcher to draw samples from the populations studied, thus reducing the amount of data to be collected and processed by considering only data from sub groups rather than all possible cases or elements.


Excerpt out of 60 pages


The effectiveness of money as a motivation for academic institutions. An assessment
Bachelor of Human Resource Management
Catalog Number
ISBN (eBook)
ISBN (Book)
File size
803 KB
This text was written by a non-native English speaker. Please excuse any errors or inconsistencies.
academic institutions, money as motivation, employee motivation, tudarco, tumaini university
Quote paper
Alex Mbegu (Author), 2016, The effectiveness of money as a motivation for academic institutions. An assessment, Munich, GRIN Verlag,


  • No comments yet.
Read the ebook
Title: The effectiveness of money as a motivation for academic institutions. An assessment

Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free