Date: 05/10/2024

Author: Charles Ganbaatar

1. Introduction

Employee performance, productivity and work satisfaction are mostly driven by motivation. Satisfying employees’ desires, personal needs can potentially create a harmonious work environment, increase employee morale and align individual goals with organizational objectives. It seems to work best when managers understand their employees’ needs and implement effective strategies accordingly. Motivation in management has become increasingly imperative in the process of improving organizational performance and productivity. Evidently, it is the key component to help employees go the extra mile and contribute to the organization’s success. In essence, management is responsible to inspire their employees to reach their potential and keep them motivated and engaged with their work life. Because motivated employees are more committed and proactive to help the organization to achieve its long-term objectives by meeting their own personal goals and career aspirations.

Motivation is a force acting within a person that cause them to behave in a goal directed manner (Edun & Adenuga, 2011). Luthan defines motivation as a process that begins with a need that activates behavior and a drive that is aimed at a goal incentive (Luthan,1988). The psychological process gives behavior purpose and direction (Kreitner,1995), motivation deals with dynamic changes within each person that bring about their motives to ensure the achievement of predetermined goals (Ilogu, 2007). Which means the process of motivation is significantly based on the relationship among drives, needs and incentives.  Each employee is dependent on their direct manager for motivational and promotional opportunities, so is the manager dependent on their superior for conditions of motivation which are meaningful at their level (Myers, 1966). Healthy motivation patterns should begin at the top, as the managers often have better understanding of organizational goals. The motivation of an employee is strongly correlated to the level of motivation of their direct manager and the management styles. In addition, sensitivity or ability to understand people plays a big part in interpersonal competence. Managers who can relate personal goals, organizational objectives and respond favorably to organizational objectives will find themselves being praised by their bosses. After all, it is the manager’s responsibility to motivate employees to work toward supporting the organization to achieve its objectives, motivate employees to work toward achieving their own short- and long-term goals (Shanks & Buchbinder, 2008).

However, achieving the goals of both the organization and employee is often complicated for managers in all types of companies or organizations; in part as a result of the organizational complexity, also as a function of the wide array of people who are hired by the organization, who must work collaboratively with each other in delivering the products and services. We know perfectly well that managers do exert some influence over their employees, but they cannot force an employee to act. Managers therefore may seek to use various incentives as motivators, but the real motivation to act comes from within the person. Managers can use motivational techniques such as setting personal goals, providing professional development, offering benefits, reconfiguring teams and improving work conditions. When all is said and done, it is up to employees themselves to take action.  Some employees merely put in time and solely motivated by their family commitments, hobbies and other personal interests. Perhaps, manages can design different motivational programs to address the needs of their employees that are appreciated by them. So, let’s take look at the employee relations.

Employee relations

Employee relations is mostly about managing the employment relationship and creating a positive psychological bond. Employee relations cover a wide range of the employment relationship including terms and conditions of employment, management communication, and collaboration between management and labor unions. I will touch on unionization later in this chapter. Sadly, managements and labor unions must learn to live with each other on give and take basis, because both can lose miserably from a climate of hostility and unnecessary confrontation. However, the term employee relations also make it possible to encompass union and non-union relations. The term maintains a collective focus on the individual and the individual employment relationship (Marchington & Wilkinson, 1996). To some extent, employers and managers are in charge of their departments and operations. The cornerstone of employment contract is the employment relationship in organizations consist of employers and employees who work together towards the same objectives (Rubery et al., 2002). The employment relationship is also an informal process as well as the psychological contract, which conveys certain expectations and assumptions.  Such relationship is initiated with a written legal contract, all parties have certain implied legal obligations and rights. Employees must agree to let management direct their labor, they agree to the range of responsibilities and are willing to follow management’s direction. That is why in the employment relationship there will always be actual and potential conflicts (Thompson & Harley, 2007). Employers often represent capital and employees represent labor; their relationships can usually be ones of structured antagonism (Edwards, 1990). For that reason, employees want to be treated in terms of equity, consistency and fairness. They prefer to have security of employment with career expectations and the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills. In a perfect world, everyone aims to work together to the greater good of all. Both management and employees gain from cooperative forms of employment relationships (Kochan & Osterman, 1994). A pure collectivism-based organization enhances the desire for employees to remain with the organization and increases employment attachment (Triguero-Sanchez, Pena-Vinces, & Ferreira, 2022). On the other hand, management views the enterprise as a unitary system with utmost loyalty to the organization. Which praises the virtues of persistence and teamwork, where every manager strives collectively to the common objectives and pulls their weigh to do the best as they can, accepts their position and follows the leadership of the appointed top management.

Unionization

According to the statistics provided by the UK Department of Business and Trade, union membership in the UK has significantly declined in the past four decades. Although there was a slight recovery between 2017 and 2020, overall, union membership levels have fallen by 10.4% since 1995, from 7.1 million to 6.4 million (Bishop, 2023). The decline in employee membership mainly occurred in the private sector, trade union membership among public sector dropped by 12,000 in 2023 to total of 3.8 million. In the same year, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that union member accounted for about 10% of salary workers (BLS, 2024). There has been a steady decline since 1983 by 50.25%, from 20.1% in 1023 to 10% in 2023 (Statista, 2023). The US union membership reached a historic low in 2023, despite a small rise during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In Australia, about 12.5% of employees were union members in 2022. Australian union members have fallen by 69.51% from 41% to 12.5% since 1992 (ABS, 2022).

Countries like the UK, the USA and Australia are moving towards a more decentralized unionization structure, the labor costs in these countries are more flexible to reflect local environments and conditions (Pennings & Mukherjee, 2011). The competition between the decentralized unions is more effective in softening the hold-up problem, creating a much stronger incentive for operating under such structure. Because of the competition and the decentralized environment, unionized labor markets almost always have some sorts of impacts on the performance of the organizations and companies. The question of whether unionization harms an organization’s performance has been at the center of political debates since the 19^th century (Cassell & Halaseh, 2014). With such a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of a unionized labor force, why do we have unions? The history suggests that there is a psychological need for employees with common concerns to collaborate in the formation of such associations to represent their common interests (Reif, 2020). Even if many employees prefer to individually negotiate their contracts and raise their own concerns due to personal privacy or seek representation by other ways than a union. Some employees strongly believe that they can negotiate more effectively in a group and gain more bargaining power than individually, and better distribute the cost of doing so. Little did they know that social media has radically changed the way people do things and the way they connect and interact with each other, which has directly led to a real paradigm shift in society. However, we could continually expect to see a significant number of employees to find the idea of unionization very attractive, and many of these people to gradually become activists or protesters, who might actually try to form their own unions for others to join; in the name of merit pay as an example. If an agreement between suppliers to not sell their products or serviecs below certain prices would constitute unlawful restraint on trade or monopolistic, an agreement among workers only sell their labor, expertise or time at certain prices could seem to be so as well. The labor theory of value claims that unions cause “crowding effects”, in which union salary gains lead to cuts in the numbers of union jobs (Kahn, 1978). The union salary premium mostly applies to relatively low salary workers with less skills (Eren, 2009) and who have less than a high school education (Maxwell, N. (2007). Most benefits of unionization have been documented for low salary workers in places like call centers (Batt, Hunter & Wilk, 2003), hotels (Bernhardt, Dresser & Hatton, 2003), and hospitals (Applebaum et al,. 2003). These research studies show how unions demand management for higher salaries, limit the recruitment of contingent workers such as casual contractors whose presence could potentially reduce overall salaries of union workers and regulate working conditions. Even among institutions of higher education, unionization has long been controversial within academia. When it was initially introduced to universities in the 1960s, faculty claimed that joining a union would eventually undermine its professional identity, subsequently create a divisive force on campuses and weaken the consensus and culture of collegiality (Ladd & Lipset, 1973). One of the recent studies indicated that it still remains unclear whether unionization can help create more efficiency or create an environment that promotes students’ completion and graduation rates (Cassell & Halaseh, 2014). Nevertheless, many people believe that unions can negotiate more favorable terms or conditions on their behalf which results in joining organized labor movements. For example, many employees in some South African companies are willing to join unions to satisfy their need for such affiliation (Charles, 2008). On the other hand, the unions’ non delivery of employee’s expectations can in turn lead to a very dissatisfied and de-motivated workforce (Amos & Ristow, 2005). Therefore, management cannot rely on trade unions to increase the motivation of their employees in the long run. Because the main function of unions is to level the playing grounds for management and the employees. A recent meta-analysis of 59 academic journal studies between 1978 and 2015 conducted by Laroche showed that unionization is negatively related to job satisfaction, but it is mostly due to the working conditions and types of employees that are likely to be unionized (Laroche, 2017). For example, de-motivated employees tend to complain and to join a union to express their dissatisfaction. So, in order to gain a better understanding of the concepts of motivation in management, I would like to discuss relevant theories of motivation in the following chapter which I hope will give some sanctity and charm to this topic.

2. Theories of Motivation

1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

In 1943, Abraham H. Maslow postulated a hierarchy of human needs that progresses from the lowest, subsistence level needs to the highest level of self-awareness (Shanks & Buchbinder, 2008).  Maslow concluded that once one set of needs is accomplished and satisfied, it ceases to be a motivating factor (Trivedi & Mehta, 2019). The next set of needs in the hierarch of priority takes its place, all the needs in such hierarchy is compared to a pyramid (Figure 1.).

Physiological Needs:

Basic and biological needs that are required for human survival including food, water, air, and desires, etc. these needs are the foundation of the pyramid and have priority over all other needs. Until they are satisfied to the required extent, no other needs can motivate an employee. A starving worker is not able to think of anything else but food and drink.

Safety Needs:

Such as shelter, a safe environment or secure employment. These needs are related to the psychological fear of losing home or employment, natural disasters, etc. An employee prefers to have adequate job security, personal safety, pension and life insurance. As you can see that physiological needs can no longer be motivational at this stage. Safety needs can be motivational forces only when they are not satisfied.

Belonging Needs:

Including the desire for friendship, affection, interaction and social contact. Employees desire to stay in groups. People naturally tend to seek for belonging, desire to be loved and affiliated to various groups. Most employees want to interact with their colleagues and superiors.

Esteem Needs:

They can be social status, recognition at work, self-confidence, competence and positive regard. Employees want to be respected by others and appreciated by superiors; many want to gain prestigious positions. In other words, personal ego needs to be satisfied. Managers can satisfy this need by giving public recognition to high performance employees. Again, esteem needs cannot be the motivational factors until the previous needs are satisfied.

Self-actualization Needs:

These include desire for higher achievement, personal growth, development and having autonomy. This is at the highest level in the hierarchy of needs, employees need to work efficiently if they are to be ultimately satisfied. They want to utilize their potentials to the highest extent to become what they can become.

Perhaps Maslow’s theory of needs is somewhat over simplified, but it is a good starting point. We must understand that needs of every employee are different, some employees are satisfied only with physiological needs or safety needs. In this day and age, an employee might have many needs to be satisfied, which may not necessarily follow Maslow’s need hierarchy. This theory seems to be more philosophical than practical.

2. Alderfer’s ERG Theory

In 1969, a study of developing and testing an alternative to Maslow’s theory was produced by Clayton P. Alderfer (Alderfer, 1969). It is based on a three-fold conceptualization of human needs, a hypothesis for the problem of relevant need satisfaction to strength of human desires: existence, relatedness, and growth (ERG). Lower-level satisfaction is no longer a prerequisite for the next level of higher needs, but it does have propositions in relation to the impact of higher-level satisfaction to the strength of lower-level needs. If a more significant need is not satisfied, the desire to gratify a lower-level need is increased which leads to the person to regress to a more basic need category. ERG Theory also allows the order of the needs to suit different types of people. The progression from relatedness satisfaction to growth desires does not assume the satisfaction of a person’s existence needs. According to Alderfer, a deeper understanding can be achieved for the various phenomena to which Maslow had addressed. Above all, the ERG theory is proposed to deal with the issue of how need satisfaction is related to need strength. People’s motivations and priorities can be fluid and moved between the levels of existence, relatedness and growth over time (Caulton, 2012).

Existence Needs

Maslow’s top two levels which include all material and physiological desires. Safety needs refer to the avoidance of threat, danger, anxiety, fear and tension. Physiological needs refer to the pursuit of satisfaction at the vitality level. Material needs refer to things required for a person to live and survive.

Relatedness Needs

Maslow’s third and fourth levels. These encompass social and external esteem needs; relationships with others such as friends, family, colleagues and managers. People want to be recognized and feel secure as part of a group. Relatedness needs also include senses of belonging and respect.

Growth Needs

Maslow’s fourth and fifth levels. Internal esteem and self-actualization impel a person to make productive or creative effects on himself and the environment around them. This includes desires to be creative and complete meaningful tasks.

3. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

In the 1970s, Herzberg’s two factor theory was one of the most widely known approach in relation to job satisfaction. Although Herzberg’s theory had been successfully implemented by organizations and companies, it had suffered dismal failures, such as overstatement of theory. Herberg expounds the concept that a person has two sets of needs, their need as an animal to avoid pain, and need as a human to grow psychologically (Herzberg, 1969). A person exists as a duality and has two sets of needs relating to the development of the two-factor theory, the dual nature follows the two sets of needs of a person are essentially independent of one another, they operate in opposing directions (Noell, 1976). The theory is based upon an idea that motivation can be dichotomized into hygiene and motivation factors, both needs are the need to avoid potential discomfort, and the need for personal development (Galankis & Peramatzis, 2022). Any shortage of the factors will become the motivating factors for employees to change their interests and focus on non-job-related factors (hygiene factors). The main motivating factors are in the intrinsic value and job satisfaction gained from the job. To motivate an employee, their tasks or duties must be challenging, and they are provided with scope for enrichment and personal development in the workplace. Motivators are strong correlated with the factors directly concerned with the job satisfaction. Motivation in the workplace is an extremely imperative factor of organizational performance and employee retention or satisfaction. Unfortunately, we have not seen many organizations or companies have made employee motivation and job satisfaction as their top priorities. Evidently, satisfied employees are more productive, committed and creative to their tasks and employers.  Herzberg’s theory ultimately helps managers to focus on the tasks of motivation by drawing attention to the factors which are overlooked, it explains the often-unsolved problems of why company policies failed to motivate their employees. Managers need to understand that motivation in the workplace is not always about financial rewards such as extrinsic incentives associated with higher pay and punishment, various non-financial rewards can be very effective to derive the best out of employees. It is almost always the manager’s responsibility to identify and align with relevant motivation theories that are acceptable to create job satisfaction to their employees. Results-oriented managers must go all the way to motivate their employes in order to reach their objectives. On the other hand, employees need to be capable of acquiring new skills, improving their knowledge on the job. It is impossible to obtain 100% positive results by simply applying Herzberg’s two factor theory, since other key factors must be also considered. 

4. McClelland’s Acquired Needs Theory

It is also known as the Human Motivation Theory, developed by David Mclelland in 1987. The theory aims to explain how motivation influences behavior, motivation can shape people’s behaviors, their needs, desires and wants (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). McClelland identified three motivators that every person possesses: needs for achievement, affiliation and power. People have different characteristics depending on their dominant motivators, these motivators are not inherent but rather learned. For example, feelings that people have about their own levels of accountability and the degree to which they believe they will be required to answer to others (Royle & Hall, 2012). If managers want to motivate their employees, it is critical to comprehend their needs and desires first. The need for achievement includes the willingness to improve, to solve problems and to master complicated tasks (Siok, Sim & Rahmat, 2023). The need for affiliation refers to internal strength to build rapport with others in different forms of relationships, such as professional relationship and friendship (Asari & Rosiana, 2021). It is also the motive to strive for various relationships, establish, maintain and restore a positive relationship with another person (Miron & McClelland, 1979). The need for power refers to the extent to which a person desires to influence others. Studies show that managers of entrepreneurs primarily concentrate on using achievement motivation to achieve their goals (Tran & Von Korflesch, 2016). Motivation ignites the excitement and desires to take the required steps toward becoming successful, compelling employees to engage in their given tasks and drive them to do their job. Some research findings indicated that needs for achievement, affiliation and power differentially promote individual feelings of accountability and answerability, and it partially mediates the relationship between informal accountability for others and needs themselves (Royle & Hall, 2012).

5. Reinforcement Theory

Burrhus F. Skinner’s reinforcement theory assumes that behavior is influenced by consequences, it is mostly about behaviorism. It proposes that managers can change employees’ behaviors by using appropriate positive or negative reinforcement, punishment and extinction. Rewards are used to encourage good behavior, punishments are used to prevent bad behavior, and extinction is to stop someone from performing an acquired behavior. Positive reinforcement makes employees feel encouraged or appreciated, it subsequently maximizes contentment and productivity in the workplace. For example, positive reinforcement can be public praise, recognition and various awards (Wijaya et al., 2022). Skinner’s studies focused on outward behavior and environment that mattered rather than a person’s goals or intentions, he formalized in his principles of operant conditioning. A rewarded behavior increases the likelihood of the same desired behavior reoccur, thus when a positive outcome occurs after an action, such particular response will be reinforced. Maslow and Alderfer’s needs theories focus on various emotional states, but reinforcement theory focuses on observable behavior. Therefore, it is a form of operant conditioning that focuses on the environmental factors, which involved the change of behavior by inhibiting effect of consequences. Such theory should be applied in the workplace through promotion opportunities, employee benefits, and salary. Use promotion as a positive reinforcement to desirable consequences and pleasant outcomes, it will increase the probability that the same result and response will be repeated (Watson, 2012).

6. Adam’s Equity Theory

In 1963, John S. Adam argued that equity and fairness are the key components of motivation. His theory is based on assumption that people want to be treated equally and fairly, it explains a person’s perception of fairness in social exchange relationships are dependent on the perception of one’s input into relations and output of those relations compared to the ratio of the input and output of others (Davlembayeva & Alamanos, 2023). Adam explained that the equity theory was develop due to the lack of theoretical studies of the psychological basis of inequity perception (Adams, 1963). The lack of understanding of fairness is the main concern for organizations and companies around the world, the ability to explain the perception of fairness underlines the employees’ attitudes and behavior towards their management. Adam proposed that equity or inequity is not a matter of being unpaid or overpaid, neither is it the consideration of economic measurements. It is about the consideration of equity that is socially dependent, which entails complicated cognitive and psychological processes. Adam’s research studies had much social importance on the society, in terms of promoting social justice (Adams & Freedman, 1976).

Inequity in the workplace creates the psychological discomfort due to the inconsistency in the outcomes, for example, an employee receives fewer rewards compared to the number of contributions, when other employees receive greater rewards with less contribution, it triggers distress associated with the feeling of jealousy and anger. Consequently, the greater the negative inequity, the stronger is the distress that employees feel (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). When workplace inequity is perceived, the unhappy employee aims to restore inequity either physically or psychologically in pursuit of removing further emotional tensions associated with inequity; by way of redistributing the input or output of their work to close that discrepancy. For example, such employees might stop being committed to their job and search motivators from other non-job-related activities to keep themselves happy or satisfied. Managers should not blame their employees for having side hustles or secondary employment, because they are not being treated fairly or given more attention or challenging tasks. As Adam mentioned that the individual input/output equate to input/output of referent others. The Equity Theory can be used to gauge the effect of fairness perception on employees’ positive or negative behavior (Janssen, 2001). However, it does not take into consideration the differences between people and their cultural backgrounds, which can affect the perception of equity (Walster, Berscheid & Walster, 1976). In conclusion, when employees give too much and receive a little in return, they naturally feel unsatisfied. A lasting professional relationship is formed based on equality; the input must equate to the outcomes.

7. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

In 1964, Victor Vroom proposed his Expectancy Theory, which explained that each person has a different set of goals and certain expectations. The choice is based on a two-stage sequence of expectations: 1) effort can lead to performance 2) performance can lead to specific outcomes or rewards. Vroom’s theory differs from theories of Maslow, Alderfer, McClelland and Herzberg in that his expectancy theory provides a process of cognitive variables, refection of individual differences in work related motivation; it does not make suggestions on what motivates employees. Expectancy theory identifies things that can be accomplished to motivate employees, such as alteration of effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to-reward expectancy and reward valences (Lunenburg, 2011). Vroom’s theory is based on four assumptions, 1) people join organizations or companies with expectations about their motivations, personal needs, and past experiences. 2) an employee’s behavior is a result of conscious choice. They behave according to their own expectancy calculations. 3) employees expect different things from their employers, such as job security, salary, challenge, development and advancement. 4) employees have options to choose among other alternatives as to optimize outcomes for themselves (Vroom, 1964). These assumptions are also accompanied by three elements: 1) expectancy: an employee’s estimate of the possibility that their effort will result in each level of performance. If the employee sees no chance that their effort will lead to the desired outcome or performance level, the expectancy is deemed 0. 2) instrumentality: an employee’s estimate of the possibility that their achieved task performance will lead to various work outcomes. If an employee sees a salary increase as a result of good performance, the value of instrumentality is 1. 3) valence, the individual value of the rewards: it is the strength of an employee’s preference for rewards such as, promotion, salary increases and recognition. If an employee has a strong preference for having a financial reward, their value of valence is positive. If an employee does not care about the rewards, their valence is negative. (Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence) (Lunenburg, 2011). According to Vroom, employees have their own rationality. Their perceptions and beliefs ultimately influence their behavior in the workplace. So, they do not simply act on their internal drives, unmet needs or potential rewards. Expectancy theory has important implications for motivating employees, because it identifies goals that can be achieved by managers to motivate employees by altering their effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to-reward expectancy, and reward valences.

8. Locke’s Goal Setting Theory

The current literature on goal setting has been further reviewed and integrated by Locke and Latham, as a result, they have developed a theory of goal setting with emphasis on its practical implications to motivate employees (Lock & Latham, 1991). Their theory focuses on why some employees perform better on tasks than others, and the causes of motivation. It approaches the issue of motivation from a first level perspective and emphasizes on an immediate level of explanation of each employee’s differences in performing tasks (Ryan, 1970). Manz and Sims argued that upper management is responsible to teach lower management to lead themselves mechanisms of self-monitoring, self-set goals and self-administering regards and punishment (Manz & Sims, 1989). According to Locke and Latham, although most employees are natural self-regulators, they are not innately effective self-regulators. Skill must be acquired through experience, training and effort in order to improve self-regulation (Lock & Latham, 1991). However, the ultimate benefits of training and experience are dependent on the degree to which employees willingly engage such thought processes (Binswanger, 1991). In addition, intrinsic motivation does not include achievement motivation; because intrinsic motivation means enjoying an activity for its own sake, regardless of how well one performs. The goal setting theory is solely based on achievement motivation, which involves striving to achieve a standard of excellence (Locke & Latham, 2019). Although goal-directed action and choice are the foundation of human motivation, intrinsic motivation and achievement motivation do not go together and vary independently. For example, computers do not have goals; only their users do. Therefore, discrepancy reduction between one’s level of performance and a desired goal can never be the primary source of motivation. The motivational impact of desired goals is affected by mechanisms or moderators such as self-efficacy and ability, effective performance and commitment are closely related to the performance evaluation, feedback and levels of challenge in goals. Deadlines also improves the effectiveness of goals. Studies show that a “learning goal orientation” leads to better performance than a “performance goal orientation”, individual goal setting is as imperative as organizational goal setting (Lunenburg, 2011). Company vision and mission statements can hardly motivate employees or increase their motivation to be committed to organizational objectives. A bottom-up approach might be a better option to increase job satisfaction.

3. Bigger Picture

Research studies show that employees with higher objective social status tend to have better psychological well-being (Adler et al., 2000), they are likely to have better performance in the workplace with higher motivation and more positive relationships with others (Deci & Ryan, 2001). Objective social status refers to material possessions, tangible resources and educational background, it is often measured by education, financial wealth and income (Adler et al., 2000). However, people with high subjective social status usually receive admiration and respect from others and exert certain amount of influence in their social groups in the workplace, among friends or family (Shaked et al., 2016). Because objective social status can directly or indirectly present certain level of status which is visible to others and can be agreed upon by some social consensus, for this reason, objective status is usually more powerful predictor in interdependent than independent cultural contexts (Curhan et al., 2014). According to Hareli and Weiner’s attribution theory, balanced structures produce a positive image that hard work pays off and employees will gain motivation to work harder and become as successful as their superior peers (Hareli & Weiner, 2002). Bother subjective and objective social statuses play very different roles in terms of envy; subjective social status seems to be more relevant in upward social comparisons, which can lead to malicious envy. But in the long run, material possessions do not motivate employees to move up the organizational hierarchy to the same extent (Bollo et al., 2020).

---

References:

ABS (2022). Trade union membership. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/trade-union-membership/latest-release#:~:text=Of%20the%2011.4%20million%20employees,has%20generally%20declined%20since%201992.

Adams, J. & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity Theory Revisited: Comments and Annotated Bibliography. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43-90.

Adams, J. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436.

Adler, N., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G. & Ickovics, J. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586-592.

Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational behaviour and human performance, 4, 142-175.

Amos, T., Amos, A., & Ristow, L., (2005). Human Resource Management (2nd ed.). Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Ltd.

Applebaum, E., Berg, P., Frost, A. & Preuss, G. (2003). The Effects of Work Restructuring on Low-Wage, Low-Skilled Workers in U.S. Hospitals. In Low Wage America, edited by Applebaum, E., Bernhardt, A. & Murnane, R. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Asari, V. & Rosiana, A. (2021). The discourse of organization changes from the perspective of David Mc Clelland’ ‘s achievement motivation theory. International Journal of Multi-Science, 2(6), 56-62.

Batt, R., Hunter, L. & Wilk, S. (2003). How and When Does Management Matter? Job Quality and Career Opportunities for Call Center Workers. In Low Wage America, edited by Applebaum, E., Bernhardt, A. & Murnane, R. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Benny, L., Linda, T., Tarigan, S. & Wijaya E. (2022). Antecedents employee performance: a perspective enforcement theory. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 2(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7777/jiemar.v2i4

Bernhardt, A., Dresser, L. & Hatton, E. (2003). The Coffee Pot Wars: Unions and Firm Restructuring in the Hotel Industry. In Low Wage America, edited by Applebaum, E., Bernhardt, A. & Murnane, R. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Binswanger, H. (1991). Volition as cognitive self-regulation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 154-178.

Bishop, I. (2023). Trade Union Membership, UK 1995-2023: Statistical Bulletin. Department for Business & Trade. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/665db15a0c8f88e868d334b8/Trade_Union_Membership_UK_1995_to_2023_Statistical_Bulletin.pdf

BLS (2024). Western Information Office. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/unionmembership_california.htm#:~:text=Nationwide%2C%2014.4%20million%20wage%20and,(See%20map%201.)

Bollo H., Hager DR., Galvan, M. & Orosz, G. (2020) The Role of Subjective and Objective Social Status in the Generation of Envy. Front. Psychol. 11, 513-495.

Cassell, M. & Halaseh, O. (2014). The Impact of Unionization on University Performance. Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, 6(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.58188/1941-8043.1314

Caulton, J. (2012). The Development and the Use of the Theory of ERG: A Literature Review. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 5(1), 2-8. https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/vol5iss1/ELJ_Vol5No1_Caulton_pp2-8.pdf

Charles, W. (2008). The relationship between union service delivery, motivation and job satisfaction amongst unionized workers in a media organization in the western cape. University of the Western Cape.

Curhan, K., Levine, C., Markus, H, Kitayama, S., Park, J., Karasawa, M., Kawakami, N., Love, G., Coe, C., Miyamoto, Y. and Ryff, C. (2014). Subjective and Objective Hierarchies and Their Relations to Psychological Well-Being: A U.S./Japan Comparison. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(8), 855-864.

Davlembayeva, D. & Alamanos, E. (2023). Equity Theory: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed). Theory Hub Book. https://open.ncl.ac.uk/ISBN: 9781739604400

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.

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

Edwards, P. (1990). Understanding conflict in the labor process: the logic and anatomy of struggle, in Labor Process Theory. Macmillan, London.

Eren, O. (2009). Does Membership Pay Off for Covered Workers? A Distributional Analysis of the Free Rider Problem. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 62, 367-80.

Galankis, M. & Peramatzis, G. (2022). Herzberg’s motivation theory in workplace. Psychology Research, 12(1), 971-978.

Hareli, S. & Weiner, B. (2002). Dislike and envy as antecedents of pleasure at another’s misfortune. Motiv. Emot. 26, 257-277.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of organization behaviour: Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Herzberg, F. (1969). Work and the nature of man. Thomas Y. Crowell Co.

Ilogu, G. (2007). The effect of students’ achievement motivation on their cognitive      

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness Perceptions as a Moderator in the Curvilinear Relationships Between Job Demands, and Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.

Kahn, L. (1978). The Effects of Unions on the Earnings of Nonunion Workers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 31, 205-216.

Kochan, T. & Osterman, P. (1994). The Mutual Gains Enterprise: Forging a winning partnership among labor, management and government. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ladd, E. & Lipset, S. (1973). Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Laroche, P. (2017). Research Shows Unionized Workers Are Less Happy, but Why? Harvard Business Review.

Lock, E. & Latham, G. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212-247.

Lock, E. & Latham, G. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: a half century retrospective. American Psychological Association 2019, 5(2), 93-105.

Lunenburg, F. (2011). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectancy. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1).

Lunenburg, F. (2011). Goal setting theory of motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and administration, 15(1).

Luthan, F. (1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 127 -132.

Manz, C. & Sims, H. (1989). Super-leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A. (1996). Core Personnel and Development. London: IPD.

Maxwell, N. (2007). Wage Differentials, Skills, and Institutions in Low-Skill Jobs. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 61, 394-409.

Miron, D. & McClelland, D. (1979). The Impact of Achievement Motivation Training on Small Businesses. California Management Review, 21(4), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164830

Myers, S. (1966). Conditions for manager motivation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/archive-toc/3661

Noell, N. (1976). Herzberg’s two factor theory of job satisfaction. Defence systems management school.

Pennings, E. & Mukherjee, A. (2010). Unionization structure, licensing and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29(2), 232-241.

      performance behavior. International journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 105-113.

Reif, M. (2020). In the name of liberty: the agreement for universal unionization. Cambridge University Press.

Royle, T. & Hall, A. (2012). The relationship between McClelland’s theory of needs, feeling individually accountable, and informal accountability for others. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 5(1), 21-36.

Rubery, J., Earnshaw, J., Marchington, M., Cooke, F. & Vincent, S. (2002). Changing organizational forms and the employment relationship, Journal of Management Studies, 39 (5), 645–72.

Ryan, T. (1970). Intentional behaviour. New York: Ronald Press.

Shaked, D., Williams, M., Evans, M. and Zonderman, A. (2016). Indicators of subjective social status: differential associations across race and sex. SSM Popul. Health 2, 700-707.

Shanks, N., Buchbinder, S. (2008). Health care management. Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Siok, T., Sim, M., & Rahmat, N. (2023). Motivation to Learn Online: An Analysis from McClelland’s Theory of Needs. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(3), 215-234. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i3/16471

Statista (2023). Rate of union membership of employees in the United States from 1983 to 2023. Statista US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/195349/union-membership-rate-of-employees-in-the-us-since-2000/#:~:text=Union%20membership%20has%20been%20declining,a%20union%20increased%20in%202023.

Thompson, P. & Harley, B. (2007). HRM and the worker: labor process perspectives, in Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, ed P Boxall, J Purcell and P Wright. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Tran, A. & Von Korflesch, H. (2016). A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-12-2016-007

Triguero-Sanchez, R., Pena-Vinces, J. & Ferreira, J. (2022). The effect of collectivism based organizational culture on employee commitment in public organizations. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 83, 1-7.

Trivedi, A. & Mehta, A. (2019). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Theory of Human Motivation. International Journal of Research in all Subjects in Multi Languages, 7(6), 38-41.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E. & Walster, G. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151-176.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E. & Walster, G. (1976). New Directions in Equity Research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1-42.

Watson, J. (2012). Learning theory and behavioural Psychology: Reinforcement and reinforcement schedules. Psychology 101. The Virtual Psychology Classroom: AllPsych Online. http://allpsych.com/psychology101/reinforcement.html