Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

Supervisors’ and Employees’ Ranking Order of Motivating Factors 
Foreman Facts
________Kovach_______ Mercurio 
et 
al. 
_1946_
_1980_ _1987 _1995_ 
_2006_
Motivating Factors 
S E S E S E S E S E 
Good 
working 
conditions 
4 9 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 2 
Feeling 
of 
being 
in 
on 
things 
10 2 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 8 
Tactful 
discipline 
7 10 6 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 
Full 
appreciation 
of 
work 
done 
8 1 8 2 8 2 8 2 1 3 
Personal 
loyalty 
to 
employees 
6 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 6 6 
Good 
wages 
1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 
Promotion and growth in the organization 
3 
7 
3 
6 
3 
6 
3 
6 
3 
2 / 6
Sympathetic help with personal problems 
9 
3 
9 
9 
6 
10 
6 
10 
10 
9 
Job 
security 
2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 
Interesting 
work 
5 6 5 1 5 1 5 1 8 10 
Note
. S = supervisor; E = employee. 2/6 signifies that employees equally ranked “promotion and growth in the organization” as the second and 
sixth most important motivating factor. Adapted from “Employee Motivation: Addressing a Crucial Factor in Your Organization’s Performance,” 
by K. A. Kovach, 1995, 
Employment Relations Today, 22(
2)
, 
98. Copyright 1995 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 
The Kruskal-Wallis test, the non-parametric equivalent of a one-way analysis of variance, determined the 
difference between how supervisors and employees ranked each motivating factor. Chi-square values determined 
the difference in ranking order of each motivating factor between supervisors and employees. “Full appreciation of 
work done” was the only motivating factor to exhibit a statistically significant difference in ranking order between 
supervisors and employees (
χ
2
= 12.75, 
p 
= .01).
To determine if there was an overall significant difference between how supervisors and employees ranked 
motivating factors, the original data were standardized and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using 
Wilks’ Lambda was conducted, resulting in a statistically significant difference (
λ
= 0.902, 
F
= 2.366, 
p
= 0.011) in 
how supervisors and employees responded. In other words, there was an overall difference between how 
supervisors and employees ranked motivating factors. While significant, the difference was minimal. When the 
effect size of the difference was calculated, it was extremely low (
η
2
= 0.098).
A final Kruskal-Wallis test determined if there was a significant difference between how English literate 
and Spanish literate participants ranked motivating factors. “Promotion and growth” was the only motivating factor 
found to exhibit a statistically significant difference in ranking order (
χ
2
= 6.548, 
p
= .01).