EFFECTS OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION ON ORGANIZATIONAL

PERFORMANCE AT ETHIOPIAN TELECOM SOUTH WEST

REGION JIMMA

Wolde SHIFERAW DUBAGUS, MA ¹*

Eminent NEGASH, MA. ²
Aregu ASMARE HAILU, MA. ³
Shimekit KELKAY ESHETE, MA. ⁴
Jimma University, Collage of Business and Economics, Management Department, woldeshif@gmail.com , *Correspondent Author
¹
² Jimma University, Collage of Business and Economics, Management Department, negashemnet@gmail.com
³ Jimma University, Collage of Business and Economics, Management Department, areguasmare2@gmail.com
⁴ Jimma University, Collage of Business and Economics, Hospitality and Tourism Management Department, skelkay@gmail.com

Article history: Abstrac t

Accepted 02 July 2020
Available online 31 August 2020
The study examined the effects of employee motivation on organization performance of crews in
Ethio telecom South West Region Jimma. The data were collected through self-administered
Keywords: questionnaire from 229 respondents and 219 were returned. Both primary and secondary sources of
Ethiopia, data were consumed in this study. The quantitative research approach was implemented and simple
Employee, random sampling technics were adopted to provide equal chances for respondents. Exploratory
Training, research design and data was analyzed using correlation and regression analysis. The correlation
Promotion, analysis indicates that there was a positive relationship between the independent variables and
Teamwork, dependent variables. The result of the regression implies that the independent variables have
Employee Benefit, accounted for 78.1% of variance in the dependent variable. Based on the outcome of the study, the
Organization Performance, researcher recommend that, it is better if the company focuses on employee motivation factors,
Working Enviroment. mostly Promotion, employee benefit, teamwork and training so as to improve its performance.

1. Introduction anticipated to achieve the successful overall performance of that

Employee motivation is one of the rules of managers of growth challenge (Armstrong, 2006).

efficient task control between personnel in businesses. A

motivated employee is responsive of the precise goals and goals Factors affecting employee’s motivation, nobody work for free,

he or she ought to achieve consequently he or she directs its nor need to them. Employees need to earn affordable revenue and

attempt in that course. Motivation formulates an enterprise fee, and personnel choice their people to sense that is what they're

greater successful because provoked employees are constantly getting (Houran. J, 1974). Money is the fundamental incentive,

seeking out progressed practices doing more. Getting employees no other incentive or motivational technique comes even close to

to do their satisfactory performance even in energetic it to appreciate to its influential cost (Sara et al., 2004). It has the

circumstances is one of the personnel most stable and greasy supremacy to magnetize, preserve and motivate people in the

demanding situations and this can be made possible over direction of better performance. Frederick Taylor and his

motivating them. Motivation principle is concerned with what scientific associate defined money because the most essential

determines purpose directed behavior. Those wishes, how the issue in motivating the economic workers to acquire extra

fulfillment of goals and or comments on their success reinforces productivity (Adeyinka et al., 2007). Studies have suggested that

a successful behavior and the way perception in a single’s a reward is now reason for satisfaction of the employee which

capacity to perform a specific task will actuate behavior that is directly affects the performance of the employee (Kalimullah et

30
al., 2010). The rewards are management tools that optimistically achieving the organizations goals and objectives (Pereira, 2012).
make a contribution to company’s effectiveness by using Research shows that job satisfaction is positively related to job
influencing character or organization conduct. performance, in addition low motivation and low job satisfaction
has negatively affected organizational performance. Therefore,
All organizations use pay, promotion, bonuses or different types an employee motivation is likely to have effects on the outcome
of rewards motivate and inspire high level performances of of care and performance of organizations.
employees (Reena et al., 2009). To use salaries as a motivator
effectively, managers need to recall revenue systems which ought 2. Literature Review
to include significance. Organization attach to every job, payment According to Butkus & Green (1999), motivation is originated
in keeping with overall performance, non-public or special from the word "motivate", means to move, push or impact to
allowances, fringe advantages, pensions and so on (Adeyinka et continue for satisfying a want. Motivation is a fixed of
al., 2007). And if you want them to believe you and do things for publications worried with a kind of energy that enhances overall
you and the institute, they want to be inspired (Baldoni. J, 2005). performance and directs closer to engaging in a few definite
Theories imply that leader and fans raise one another to better objectives (Kalimullah et al., 2010). Helliegel, Slocum, and
stages of morality and motivation (Rukhmani. k, 2010). Woodman describe motivation as the force acting on or within a
Motivation is solely and really a management behavior. It stems person that causes the man or woman to act in a, goal-directed
from wanting to do what is right for people in addition to for the manner (Hellriegel, 1992). Daft and Marcic explain that
organization. Management and motivation are dynamic motivation refers to the forces either within or outside to someone
techniques (Baldoni. J, 2005). that provoke passion and persistence to pursue a positive path of
movement (Daft, 2004). Bartol and Martin (1998). Consider
Including up, they work with a feeling of duty and prefer motivation is an effective tool that boosts conduct and triggers the
advantages of the organization to have benefit for themselves tendency to preserve. In different expressions, motivation is an
(Yazdani, B.O. et al., 2011). Trust is defined as the belief of one internal force to satisfy an unsatisfied want and to attain a certain
approximately others, selection to behave based on speech, goal or objective.
conduct and their choice (Hassan et al., 2010 If a business
enterprise wants to improve and be successful, agree with According to (Bartol & Martin et al., 1998) motivation is a
performs a massive function so it should continually be preserved physiological or psychological want that stimulates an overall
to make certain an organization's existence and to enhance performance set via an objective further more motivation has
workers motivation (Annamalai. T, 2010). It is able to make something to do with someone’s behavior, a reason of conduct,
intrapersonal and interpersonal results and influence at the or the motives of individual conduct, and the reasons of man or
relations, interior and out the employer (Hassan et al., 2010). woman behaviors might also vary because of one of a
Regardless of how technologically advanced an enterprise can be, sympathetic person desires. The perception of the criteria to
excessive productivity depends on the level of motivation and the managers is that they need to first discover the personality
effectiveness of the group of workers. So a personnel training is differences and their needs and develop right fashions to inspire
an indispensable method for motivating people. One way employees by means of satisfying those different needs to achieve
managers can instigate motivation is to present suitable organizational targets.
information on the judgments of their actions on others (Adeyinka
et al., 2007). Research has shown that there are a variety of Consequently, managers need to not limit themselves to at least
significant factors which determines the degree of employee one specific motivational component, as an alternative, they
motivation. Consequently, managers are crucial to the should consider numerous motivational fashions to grasp the
performance and success of the organization. different wishes of employees (Kim et al., 2006). It additionally
describes the way to inspire humans to apply their efforts and
Managers are highly involved in the process of modeling or re- abilities to achieve the business enterprise’s desires in addition to
shaping the organizational structure in a manner that inspires and satisfy their own needs (Armstrong, 2001).
increases the level of employee motivation. It is widely known
that employees are motivated and stay within an organization for
2.1. Motivation Theories
as long as they feel that the organization is able to provide an
Employee motivation is an intricate and sophisticated
opportunity for self-actualization and personal development. The
subject; however, modern managers must face and deal with this
fulfillment of such conditions contributes to an improvement of
topic to obtain organizational success. To enhance understanding
the employee’s willingness to strive toward successfully
of employee motivation, managers must recognize the

31
requirements of employee motivation, its concepts, and 2.2. Intrinsic Motivation
differences in individual needs. According to (Kim et al., 2006) Deci and Ryan (1985) suggested that intrinsic motivation is based
this understanding of the employee motivation process requires a on the needs to be competent and self-determining (that is, to have
systematic approach, and managers must realize that employee a choice). Intrinsic motivation can be enhanced by assigning
motivation and its process are there to motivate their employees. suitable job or role design. According to (Katz, 1964) the job
Therefore, employee input must be valued and included itself must provide sufficient variety, sufficient complexity,
throughout this process Maslow was a psychologist who sufficient challenge, and sufficient skill to engage the abilities of
proposed that within every person is a hierarchy of five needs the worker.
(Coulter, 2002).

2.3. Extrinsic Motivation

Maslow argued that each level in the need’s hierarchy must be
Extrinsic motivation occurs when things are done to or for people
substantially satisfied before the next need becomes dominant.
to motivate them. These include rewards, such as incentives,
An individual moves up the need’s hierarchy from one level to
increased pay, praise, or promotion; and punishments, such as
the next. In addition, Maslow separated the five needs into higher
disciplinary action, withholding pay, or criticism. Extrinsic
and lower levels. Physiological and safety needs were considered
motivators could have an immediate and powerful effect but will
lower-order needs; social, esteem, and self-actualization needs
not necessarily last long. The intrinsic motivators, which are
were considered higher-order needs. Lower-order needs are
concerned with the quality of working life (a phrase and
predominantly satisfied externally while higher-order needs are
movement that emerged from this concept) are likely to have a
satisfied internally (Coulter et al., 2002).
deeper and longer-term effect because they are inherent in
individuals and their work and not imposed from outside in such
Another classic Motivational theory is Douglas McGregor's
forms as incentive pay and summarized in Table below The most
Theory X and Theory Y. He is best known for proposing two
significant ones are those concerned with expectancy, goal setting
assumptions about human nature. Very simply, Theory X is a
and equity, which are classified as process or cognitive theories
negative view of people that assumes workers have little
Armstrong( 2009).
ambition, dislike work, want to avoid responsibility, and need to
be closely controlled to work effectively. Theory Y is a positive
Salary is very important for everyone. Wages must first be
view that assumes employees enjoy work, seek out and accept
received fairly (Wheelhouse, 1989). As (Bohlander, Snell and
responsibility, and exercise self-direction. McGregor believed
Sherman, 2001, cited in Petcharak, 2002, p. 22) argued pay is a
that Theory Y assumptions should guide management practice
major consideration in human resource management because it
and proposed that participation in decision making; responsibility
provides tangible reward for employee’s service. According to
and challenging jobs and good group relations would maximize
(Wentzel & Wigfield 2009). the connection between worker
employee motivation. (Coulter et al., 2002). Frederick Herzberg’s
motivation and employee productivity is not always well
two-factor theory (also called motivation hygiene theory)
established. However, the consensus is that motivation ends in
proposes that intrinsic factors are related to job satisfaction, while
growth of productiveness in the long run. According to (Sara,
extrinsic factors are associated with job dissatisfaction. On the
2004). major factors that affects employee performances are fair
other hand, when they were dissatisfied, they tended to cite
pay, bonus, reward, promotion, and training.
extrinsic factors arising from the job context, such as company
policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal
Dessler (2008) presented that promotion is said to be came about
relationships, and working conditions (Coulter et al., 2002).
employee makes a shift inside the upward direction within
organizational hierarchy and movements to a place of more duty
The most comprehensive explanation of how employees are
and responsibility. (Armstrong et al., 2009) argue that a
motivated is a Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory. It includes
promotion coverage could maximizes the company’s goal by
three variables or relationships invoked expectancy,
enhancing employee’s motivation. According to Milkovich
instrumentality, and valence (Coulter et al., 2002). According to
(2011). employee benefit has its own impact on company
Vroom (1969) expectancy theory, that an employee will be
performance as well as individual’s productivity. High-
motivated to apply a high level of effort when he or she trusts that
performance teams are characterized by a deep sense of
effort will lead to a good performance appraisal, followed by
commitment to their growth and success (Armstrong et al., 2009).
organization rewards such as promotion which later satisfy
Thus, teamwork plays a vital role on employee performance and
personal goals.
organization productivity. Centers and Bugental (1970)
discovered that at better occupational level, “motivators” or

32
intrinsic activity elements were extra valued, while at lower
occupational levels “hygiene factors” or extrinsic job factors had 𝐍
𝐧=
been extra valued. As many researches additionally suggest those 𝟏 + 𝐍(𝐞)𝟐

elements have significant effect on the task performance of

employees. According to Negash, Zewude, Megersa, (2014). Where n is the sample size N is the total population size and e is

there was significant and positive association between the level of precision. By using above formula we obtain sample
540
compensation and work motivation. Inconclusion different size 𝑛 = =229
1+540(0.05)2

variable and statistical measurements had been applied and tested

by several researchers. The researchers used simple random sampling technique to
distribute the survey questionnaires to acquire participant’s
2.4. Conceptual Framework perception towards the effects of employee motivation on
From the literature collected for the study the factors that organizational performance.
increases employee performance are training, promotion,
employee benefits, teamwork and working environment which In order to analyze the data gathered and come up with answers
leads to better organization productivity. The Researcher was to the question raised exploratory methods was employed. The
provided detailed information on the application and results of collected questionnaires were analyzed statistically with the help
motivational factors, so that it can justify the association or the of SPSS (statistical package for social science) version 20.
connection of outcomes of employee motivation on organization Moreover, it was summarized by frequencies, percentages,
performances. means, and standard deviations. Determination of the relationship
between the identified independent and dependent variables, the
The below Conceptual model was used in this study. researcher use Pearson’s correlation coefficient and to show the
extent of variation in the dependent variable that was explained
Figure 1. Conceptual model of study by the independent variable, the data was computed by regression
analysis so as to answer the research questions. According to
Creswell (2009) criteria for choosing statistical testes when the
number of independent variable would be more than two and
dependent variable is one multiple regression was statistically
tested. In this regard the following multiple regression models
were used to determine the variation or qualitative associations
between the variables as follows:

Y =𝛼 + β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ β5X5+e

Source: Constructed from review literature

Where: Y dependent variable = Organization performance, 𝛼 =

3. Materials and Methods
Constant, β1=is the coefficient of Employee benefit, β2=is the
This study was employed descriptive and exploratory. It is
coefficient of Promotion, β3=is the coefficient of trainings, β4=is
descriptive since descriptive data were collected through a
the coefficient of Team work, β5=is the coefficient of working
questionnaire and it is also exploratory because the researcher
condition.
would explore the effects of motivation on organization
performance so as to meet the research objective. Both primary
When β1= is the change in y for one unit change in X1 and β2 = is
and secondary types of data were collected. The primary data was
the change in y for one unit change in X2, β3= is the change in y
collected by using structured questionnaires. The Secondary data
for one unit change in X3, β4= is the change in y for one unit
was collected from published journal articles, human resource
change in X4, β5= is the change in y for one unit change in X5. X1
books, organizational manuals, and any relevant secondary
= Employee benefit, X2 = Promotion, X3 Training, X4 Team work,
sources. The populations of the study were the entire region
X5 Working environment and e = is the error term.
professional employee starting from regional management level
to lower level employees of the company. Currently, there were
total of 540 employees in the region based on data taken form the
4. Result and Discussions
regional human resource department from the total of 540
employees 229 samples were drawn based on Taro Yamane
(1967) formula.

33
 4.1. Descriptive Statistics of Employee (SD=1.47) this shows that an average of the organizations crews
motivated when they were working in teams, and believed that
Motivation and Organization
teamwork increases their productivity, this could increase the
Performance company’s performance.
As described in the research methodology, Likert scale was used
to measure the effect of motivational factors for increasing As illustrated in the above table 1 the respondents were requested
organizational performance. The researcher has revealed to rate or select the effects of employee motivation on the
employee’s insight towards motivational factors that influences performance of the company and replied that the mean value is=
company productivity. 3.09 (SD=1.41) this indicates that an average of the respondents
were agreed that employee motivation has an effect on
Table 1. Employee motivation and organization performances organizational performance in terms of profitability, employee
Descriptive statistics retention, productivity and customer satisfaction. Therefore, from
No Variables N Mean Standard the above paragraphs one can reveal that predictor variables such
Deviation as employee benefit, working environment, promotion, training
1 Employee Benefit 219 2.85 1.42 and teamwork could have averagely affects the dependent

2 Working 219 2.82 1.43 variable that is organizational performance.

environment
3 Promotion 219 3.13 1.42 4.2. Correlation Analysis
4 Training 219 3.12 1.39 In this section, the direction and degree of the strength of the
relationship among the variables were examined, it is possible to
5 Teamwork 219 3.04 1.47
determine the correlation among all scopes of the independent
6 Organization 219 3.09 1.41
variables (Employee benefits, working environment, promotion,
performance
training and teamwork) and the dependent variables (organization
Source: Own filed survey (2018)
performance) were used to analyze the strength, direction and

As shown in the above table 1 statistics, results were sorted based statistical significance of the relationship as indicated table 2

on their occurrence in the questionnaires. The mean value of an below.

employee benefit package is=2.85 (SD=1.42) this shown that, the

majority of the respondents were averagely satisfied with the The correlation results provide initial indications for further

benefit packages of the company. This indicates that employee analysis. In this study Bivariate Pearson Coefficient (r) was used

benefit has impact employee performance. The average mean to determine the relationship between the effects of motivation

value of working environment is=2.82 (SD=1.43) this indicates and organization performance by using a two-tailed test of

that employees of the organization were also averagely satisfied statistical significance at the level of 95% significance, P< 0.05.

with the working environments in which they were currently The results in Table 2 show that correlation between all variables

working on. This indicates that the working environment has an and it summarizes the values of the Pearson coefficient of

effect on employee performances. correlation and their significance. It is quite apparent from the
results that organizational performance is very strong and positive
As indicated in the above table the mean value of promotion is = correlated with promotion as the value of Pearson Correlation
3.13 (SD=1.42) from this we noticed that average of employees Coefficient .807 and the relation is significant at 95% confidence
were satisfied and motivated when they were got a promotion level (p<. 01).
opportunity and fair promotion policy and procedure within the
company. From this we deduce that promotion is the most The relationship between organization performance and
important factor that motivates and affects the employees of the employee benefit is also positive and strongly significant as
company. Accordingly, the average mean value of training is = Pearson Correlation Coefficient is .664 and p value is less than
3.12 (SD=1.39) which is shown on the table above indicates that .01 followed by the relationship between organization
average of employees were satisfied and motivated by the training performance and teamwork which is positive and strongly
given to them by the company and believed that training is significant as Pearson Correlation Coefficient is .606 and p value
important to advance their performance, this also leads to increase is less than . 01. But the relationship between training and
the performance of the organization as well. The other working environment and organization performance is positive
determinants that affect employee motivation is teamwork which and moderately significant as Pearson Correlation Coefficient is
was shown in the table 1 above and the mean value is = 3.04 .598 and .504 respectively and p value is less than . 01.

34
 Consequently, all five independent variables are positively and the results, one can argue that employee motivation has an effect
significantly correlated with organization performance. Based on on organizational performance.

Table 2. Pearson correlation analysis for independent and dependent variables

Correlations
EMPB WENV PR TR TMW ORGP
** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation 1 .373 .553 .350 .520 .664**
EMPB Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 219 219 219 219 219 219
** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .373 1 .420 .471 .376 .504**
WENV Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 219 219 219 219 219 219
Pearson Correlation .553** .420** 1 .499** .478** .807**
PR Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 219 219 219 219 219 219
** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .350 .471 .499 1 .330 .598**
TR Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 219 219 219 219 219 219
Pearson Correlation .520** .376** .478** .330** 1 .606**
TMW Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 219 219 219 219 219 219
Pearson Correlation .664** .504** .807** .598** .606** 1
ORGP Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 219 219 219 219 219 219
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). EMPB=Employee benefit, WENV=Working environment, PR=Promotion, TR=Training,
TMW=Teamwork, ORGP=Organization performance.

4.3. Regression Analysis 4.3.1.1. Multicollinearity Test

Regression analysis supports in order to measure the relative According to Andy field (2013) one way of identifying
strength of the independent variable on the dependent variable. multicollinearity is by scanning a correlation matrix of the
Thus, in order to examine the statistically significant effect of the predictor variables. SPSS yields various collinearity diagnostics,
independent variables on the dependent variable, multiple one of which is the variance inflation factor (VIF). The VIF shows
regression analysis was used. According to Kothari (2004), whether a predictor has a strong linear relationship with the other
multiple regression analysis applied when the researcher has one predictor and tolerance statistics which is the reciprocal of VIF.
dependent variable, which is supposed to be a function of two or There is no one best rule that determines the value of VIF but
more independent variables. The objective of this exploration is there are some general guidelines: If the largest VIF is greater
to make a prophecy about the dependent variable based on its than 10 then there is cause for concern (Bowerman, O’Connell,
covariance with all the concerned independent variables. & Myers, 1990). If the average VIF is substantially greater than
1 then the regression may be biased (Bowerman & O’Connell,
4.3.1. Diagnosis Test 1990). Tolerance below 0.1 indicates a serious problem.

Before applying regression analysis to assess the effect of Tolerance below 0.2 indicates a potential problem (Menard,

employee motivation on organization performance, some tests 1995). As indicated in the table 3 below tolerance value of all

were determined in order to confirm the appropriateness of data variables were above 0.5 and variance inflation factor (VIF) less

to assumptions of regression analysis as follows: than 2 hence, we conclude that there was no multicollinearity
issues exist.

Table 3. Collinearity Statistics summary

35
 Coefficientsa
Model Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
Employee Benefit .600 1.666
Working Environment .698 1.433
1 Promotions .554 1.805
Trainings .666 1.502
Teamwork .657 1.521
a. Dependent Variable: Organization Performance

4.3.1.2. Linearity Test residuals are fairly close. Moreover, the histogram is bell shaped

Linearity refers to the degree to which the variation in the which lead to deduce that the residual (disturbance or errors) are

dependent variable is related to the variation in the independent normally distributed. Thus, there is no violation of the assumption

variables. To determine whether the relationship between the normally distributed error term.

dependent variable organization performance and the

independent constructs employee benefit, working environment, Figure 3. Histogram

promotion, training and teamwork is linear, so, plots of the

regression residuals through SPSS software has been used.

Figure 2. Normal P-P Plots of regression

The scatter plot of residuals shows no more variation in the spread

of the residuals as you can see from left to right on figure 2 above.
This result suggests the relationship we are trying to predict is
linear. As a result, the above figure shows the normal distribution
of residuals around its mean of zero. Hence the normality
assumption is fulfilled as required based on the above figure, it is
possible to conclude that the inferences that the researchers would
made about the population parameter from the sample were valid.

4.3.1.3. Normality Test

Figure 3 shows the frequency distribution of the standardized
residuals compared to a normal distribution. As you can see,
although there were some residuals (e.g., those occurring around
4.3.2. Regression Analysis Result
0) that are relatively far away from the curve, many of the

36
 Table 4. Model Summary
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .886 .786 .781 .39401
a. Predictors: (Constant), Teamwork, Training, Working environment, Employee benefit, Promotion
b. Dependent Variable: Organization performance

Multiple regression result in the above table 4 indicates that only the independent variables that actually affect the dependent
employee motivation constructs (Employee benefit, working variable. As a result, the adjusted R2 0.781 revealed that 78.1%
environment, Promotion, Training and Teamwork) have of variance in organizational performance can be explained by
significant influence on the performance of the organization. The Employee benefit, working environment, Promotion, Training
adjusted R2 tells us how much change in the outcome would be and Teamwork whereas 21.9% were explained by other factor.
accounted for if the model had been derived from the population
from which the sample was taken (Field, 2013). In addition, the
adjusted R2 gives us the percentage of variation explained by

Table 5. Testing for model fit

a
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 121.247 5 24.249 156.199 .000b
1 Residual 33.068 213 .155
Total 154.315 218
a. Dependent Variable: Organization performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), Teamwork, Training, Working environment, Employee benefit, Promotion

According to (Field, 2013) the ANOVA (analysis of variance) of explained data by the mean square of residual data is F (5, 213)
tells us whether the model, overall results in a significantly better =156.199, P<.001 from this one can conclude that the overall
degree of prediction of the outcome variable. Similarly, ANOVA model has a better fit.
indicates the overall fit of the model. Hence, as we seen from table
5 the value of F which is computed by dividing the mean square

Table 6. Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -1.172 .161 -7.276 .000

Employee Benefit .325 .062 .214 5.228 .000

1 Working Environment .072 .042 .064 1.696 .091
Promotions .606 .054 .479 11.249 .000
Trainings .217 .043 .195 5.021 .000
Teamwork .186 .041 .177 4.535 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Organization Performance

37
Referenced table 6 shows that standardize beta coefficient, which things being equal, when the other independent variables
tell us the unique involvement of each factor to the model. (promotion, employee benefit, teamwork and working
According to George (2003) a large beta value and a small P value conditions) are held constant, performance would increase by
(P<.05) revealed the predictor variable has made a significance 21.7% if there is 1-unit improvement in training. This was
statistical involvement to the model. On the other hand, a statistically significant (0.00< 0.05) i.e. the variable (training) is
minimum beta value and a maximum p value (P >. 05) Indicate making a significant unique contribution to the prediction of the
the predictor variable has little or no significant influence of the dependent variable (organization performance).
model. The relative importance of effects of employee motivation
(independent variables) in contributing to the variance of the As shown from the analysis the co-efficient value of teamwork
organizational performance (dependent variable) is described by was 0.186. This means that all things being equal, when the other
the standardized beta coefficient. The beta value of employee independent variables (promotion, employee benefit, training and
benefit is (beta=.214, P<0.05), working environment (beta=.064, working conditions) are held constant, performance would
P>0.05), promotions (beta=.479, P<0.05), trainings (beta=.195, increase by 18.6% if there is a 1-unit improvement in teamwork.
P<0.05), and teamwork (beta=.177, P<0.05). Among the This was statistically significant (0.00< 0.05) i.e. the variable
independent variables, promotion is more significant and (teamwork) is making a significant unique contribution to the
statistically sound and expression. This can be interpreted as prediction of the dependent variable (organization performance).
every single unit improvement in the promotion will increase Furthermore, from the findings of this study, researchers found
organizational performance by 47.9%. Therefore, the promotion out that not all of the variables selected by the researchers have
has a greater amount of impact than other predictors On the other significant effects on organization performances.
hand, the working environment has less contribution which is
6.4% of the organization performance. Table 6 also implies that From the analysis the co-efficient value of working environment
employee benefit, promotions, training and teamwork have a was 0.072. This means that all things being equal, when the other
significant influence on organizational performance at 95% independent variables (promotion, employee benefit teamwork,
confidence level. All employee motivation factors have been and training) are held constant, performance would increase by
included in the formation of the function and detail expression as 7.2% if there is 1-unit improvement in the working environment.
follows: This was statistically insignificant because it has value more than
0.05 i.e. the variable (working environment) is not making any
Y =𝛼 + β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ β5X5+e unique contribution to the prediction of organization
Y=-1.172+0.325X1+0.606X2+0.217X3+0.186X4+0.072X5+e performance. From total of five selected variables (employee
benefit, promotion, training, and teamwork) have positive unique
The outcome of this study shows that, except working contribution to organizational performance. Among this
environment, all variables of employee motivation have a positive promotion has the most unique contributor of all, this supports
and significant effect on organizational performance. From the Vrooms (1969) expectancy theory of motivation that argues, an
analysis the co-efficient value of promotion in the organization employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort that
was 0.606. This means that all things being equal, when the other leads to good performance appraisal followed by organization
independent variables (employee benefit, teamwork, training and rewards such as promotion which later meets personal goal. On
working environments) are held constant, organization the contrary, the working environment has no significant unique
performance would increase by 60.6% if there is a 1-unit contribution to company performance. Regarding to this it is
improvement in the promotion. possible to deduce that promotion and employee benefit
contribute more for organizational performance and would be
From the analysis the co-efficient value of employee benefit was focusing area for the company to inspire its workforce.
0.325. This means that all things being equal, when the other
independent variables (promotion, teamwork, training and 5. Conclusion and Suggestions
working conditions) are held constant, organization performance Depending on the outcome of this study the following
would increase by 32.5% if there is 1-unit improvement in conclusions were made. The purpose of this study was to examine
employee benefit package. This was statistically significant the effect of employee motivation on company performance. For
(0.00<0.05) i.e. the variable (employee benefit) is making a any organizations to be productive and successful, having of
significant unique contribution to the prediction of the dependent motivated employees has the most important issue to be
variable (organization performance). Indicated from the analysis emphasized by the organization. Since organizations will be
the co-efficient value of training was 0.217. This means that all efficient if and only if their employees are motivated and this

38
could happen among others through having an effective References
motivation of employees assured by the company.
1. Armstrong. (2001). A Handbook of Human Resource
Management Practice. The Bath Press, 155.
On employee motivation, it can also be concluded that promotion,
2. AdeyinkaTella et.al (2007) Work Motivation, Job
employee benefit package, training, teamwork and working
Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment of
environment have an impact on organization performance that
Library Personnel in Academic and Research
also leads to increase productivity and performance of employees
Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria
of the company. Similarly, promotion, employee benefit, training
and teamwork have unique and significant contribution to
3. Annamalai T., Abdullah A. G. K., Alasidiyeen N. J.,
European Journal of Social Sciences 13(4) (2010)
company performance based on the result of this study.
623-632.
Furthermore, the result shows that employees of the company
were averagely agreed with the employee benefit currently 4. Appiah. D ( 2011) the effect of motivation on staff

provided by the company. performance in the health services of Ghana. a case

study of Komfo Anokye teaching hospital, Kumasi.

Likewise, the result of this study concludes that employee 5. Armstrong (2006) Human resource practices, 11 ed.,
motivation is very important factors that the region managements United Kingdom.
needs to focus on to achieve region target or goal as well as to 6. Bartol, K. M. and Martin, D. C. (1998), Management,
contribute more to company performance. Ignoring this factor 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 268-279.
could cause to build demotivated employees, which are subject to 7. Baldoni, J., (2005). Motivation Secrets. Great
reduce performance, lower commitment, and lower motivation or Motivation Secrets of Great Leaders [WWW page].
even contribute to the lesser productivity of the company. In URL http://govleaders.org/motivation_secrets.html.
contrast working environment has least unique effects on
8. Butkus & Green. (1999), Impact of Employees
company performance in this investigation result which shows
Motivation on Organizational Effectiveness Business
that the working environment has an insignificant impact on
Essay.
company performance. In summary, the major finding of this
9. Centers and Bugental (1970), Referenced in
study implies that employee motivation has a positive effect on
Muhammad IQ, Khalid Z, Iqtidar AS. Relationship
the Ethio telecom company performance.
between rewards and performance in cement industry
in Pakistan. Journal of International Academic
Based on the outcomes and conclusions the researchers
Research. 2010.
recommend that the managements of the company need to
10. Coulter, S. P. (2002). Management. New Jersey:
motivate and encourage their staffs so as to advance their
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
performance. It is important to work closely with HR departments
to have promotion opportunities and flexible career development 11. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation
which are highly prioritized by crews as an important motivation and Self Determination in Human

factor. Employees who work harder and perform well and meet 12. Dessler, G. (2008) Human Resource Management.
their targets should be motivated by their respective organizations Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
by giving them a special treatment in terms of incentives like 13. Draft, (2004). Impact of Employees Motivation on
bonus, salary increment, transportation and housing allowances Organizational Effectiveness.
and training programs to induce others to follow their footsteps. 14. Genet. M, ( 2017) the effect of employee motivation
Incentives were generally developed to generate employee on performance.
motivation, satisfaction, and greater performance of any 15. Hassan R. A., Fuwad B. A., Rauf A. I., Academy of
company. In addition, with an effective incentive, employees Strategic Management Journal 9(2) (2010) 123-131.
could gain several social and psychological benefits as a result of
16. Houran, J., & Kefgen, K., Money, and Employee
improving their purchasing power to meet his or her needs of
Motivation [WWW page]. URL www.2020skills.com
goods and services. Therefore, it can be concluded that incentives
17. Kamalanabhan TJ, U. J. (1999). A dephi study of
have great potential for improving employee work performance
motivational profile of scientists in research and
and increasing production efficiency through encouraging
development organizations. Psychol. Rep, 743-49.
individuals or groups to act in a desired and productive way. And
also the implementation of teamwork can increase efficiency and
18. Kamalian, A. R., Yaghoubi, N. M., & Moloudi, J.,
(2010) Survey of Relationship between
encourage employees to work smarter and strongly.
Organizational Justice and Empowerment (A Case

39
 Study). European Journal of Economics, Finance and 34. Thomas Owusu, 2012, effects of motivation on
Administrative Sciences, 24, 165-171. employee performance: Ghana commercial bank,
19. Katz, D. (1964) The motivational basis of Kumasi zone. Washington D.C. Springer, Inc.
organizational behavior, Vol. No. 9, pp. 131-146. 35. Vroom, V. H., (1969), in J. Steven Ott, (1989), Classic
20. Kim, S. M. (2006). “Individual-level Factors and Readings in Organizational Behavior, Brooks Cole
Organizational Performance in Government Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA.
Organizations”, Journal of Public Administration 36. Wentzel, K.R., & Wigfield, A. (2009) Handbook of
Research and Theory, 15(2)245-61. Motivation at School. Rutledge, New York
21. Luthans F (1992). Organizational Behavior, McGraw 37. Yazdani B. O., Yaghoubi N. M., Giri E. S., European
Hill.2nd Ed. Irwin. Boston. Journal of Social Sciences 20(2) (2011) 267-274.
22. Mani, V., (2010). Development of Employee
Satisfaction Index Scorecard. European Journal of
Social Sciences, 15 (1), 129-139. European Journal of
Business and Management.
23. Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. 2011.
Compensation. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
24. Mulatu. M, (2014) Determinant factors affecting
employees performance in ethio telecom zonal
offices: the case of Addis Ababa zonal offices.
25. Mullins, L. J. (2006), Essentials of Organizational
Behavior, Prentice Hall, Harlow, England
26. Ovidiu-Iliuta, D., (2013) Employee motivation and
organizational performance.
27. Pereira, C.M.M, & Gomes, J.F.S. (2012). The
Strength of Human Resource Practices and
Transformational Leadership: Impact on
Organizational Performance. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(20),
4301-4318.
28. Petcharak, P. (2002). The assessment of motivation in
the Saint Paul Hotel employees.
29. Reena et al., 2009 Impact of Motivation as HR bundle
on performance of teachers of public schools in
Bungoma Country Kenya.
30. Rijalu Negash, Shimelis Zewude, Reta Megersa,
2014. The effect of compensation on employee’s
motivation in Jimma University academic staff. Basic
Research Journal of Business Management and
Accounts, Volume 3(2), pp. 17-27.
31. Rukhmani K., Ramesh M., Jayakrishnan J., European
Journal of Social Sciences 15(3) (2010) 365-369.
32. Sara, L. (2004). The Effect of the Minimum Wage on
Prices.
33. Sileshi. D, (May 2016). Effects of employee
motivation on workers’ performance a servey study on
ethio telecom. Addis Abeba.

40