Relationships Between Aspects of Employee Satisfaction, Current Motivation, and Reward System

Abstract

• Purpose – This primary goal of the paper was to determine current status of employee motivation, job satisfaction and reward system of Qatar Petroleum. The paper sought to determine mechanism through which Qatar Petroleum employee motivation, job satisfaction and reward system could be structured to contribute into increased employee retention and contribute into management of problem f employee turnover. The study sought to determine Qatar Petroleum employee ownership, degree of employee citizenship behavior and mechanism employee motivation could be structured to contribute into increased productivity.
• Design/methodology/approach – The study was designed to use informed ethnography or enthonomethodology that was delivered through Ethnographic Narrative analysis and Ethnographic content Analysis. Informed methodology was used because it could be conducted in a narrow context which reduces study respondents. Informed enthonomethodology provides foundation for future primary research studies on study phenomenon.
• Findings – The study findings established that Qatar Petroleum didn’t have structures for employee motivation, job satisfaction or reward system that could contribute into employee job satisfaction and motivation. The study findings established lack of employee motivation was responsible for employee turnover, non-retention and increasing costs of employee recruitment. The study finding s found that the current motivation level, employee job satisfaction and reward systems were very low.
• Research limitations/implications – The study was based on six respondents that were acquired through convenience sampling. The use of convenience sampling was linked to capability for homogeneity of study findings. The threat of data homogeneity was managed through use of appropriate data reduction strategies and approaches.
• Policy implications- there is need for Qatar Petroleum to develop structures for employee motivation, job satisfaction and review its employee reward system. The Qatar Petroleum needs to change its organizational culture, decrease power distance, manage employee uncertainties, and integrated employee psychological contract into its structure for employee motivation and satisfaction. The Qatar Petroleum should shift focus on employee reward system from use of monetary benefits into non-monetary benefits. Qatar Petroleum should invest in strategies that could result into increasing employee retention, provide work life balance and promote employee participation in decision making hence improve level of employee consultation.
• Originality/value – The study on Qatar Petroleum employee motivation, job satisfaction and reward system does not have competing interests. It is a topic that has not been explored qualitatively and contributes into policy development with regard to strategic human resource management best practices.

Introduction

Background

Strategic human resource management (SHRM) has been identified as a driver for organization to demonstrate capacity for employee ownership (Meisinger, 2007, p.12) and employee reciprocity through organizational citizenship behavior which contribute into outcomes like employee satisfaction, motivation and increased productivity (cf. John et al, 2009). SHRM revolves on framework that defines human side of management as a function of organization and employee relation (Cakar, 2003, p.193). SHRM should be structured towards realization of a working environment where employee skills are applied in such a way that the organization obtains the greatest possible benefit from intellectual ability of its human capital (Kersley et al, 2006) and employees attain material and psychological rewards from their work (cf. Martin et al, 2005, pp.634-5). Managing employee satisfaction and motivation is difficult than material resource management due to conflict of interests between employees and employer (Spengler, 2009). The hypothesis below summarizes employee motivation and satisfaction construct.

• Hypothesis 1A: employee motivation contributes into capacity of employees to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior
• Hypothesis 1B: employee job satisfaction contributes into increased employee retention rate and capacity of organization to gain value from employee retention
• Hypothesis 1C: strategic management of employee job satisfaction and motivation decreases employee costs of recruitment, induction, training and development which contribute into profitability of organization and the employees through rewards for productivity and performance.

There has been increased employee turnover in the Qatar petroleum to competing petroleum organizations (Mansoor, 2007, pp.2-8). The increased employee turnover has created increasing vacancies amongst the Qatar petroleum (Mansoor, 2007, pp.4-5) that has created opportunity for offshore recruitment and outsourcing. The negative impacts of the employee turnover have been associated with loss of top performing employees which result into loss of petroleum industry competitive advantage (Blyton & Turnbull, 2004). The Qatar petroleum face the challenge of employee retention subject to lack of employee motivation and satisfaction structure (figure 1).

Different functional factors have been identified to contribute into the framework of employee satisfaction and motivation (figure 2). The hypothesis below summarizes the framework of employee motivation.

• Hypothesis 2A: inability of an organization to respond to market changes on employee motivation and job satisfaction results into incapacity to maintain employee turnover
• Hypothesis 2B: failure of organization to develop strategic job characteristics that include job flexibility and freedoms decrease employee job satisfaction and motivation.
• Hypothesis 2C: failure of an organization to develop and implement SHRM practices for employee motivation and job satisfaction creates opportunities for financial instability

Case controlled studies on Omani petroleum industries identified management teams of Qatar petroleum identify monetary benefits as a form of employee retention and motivation (Mansoor, 2007, p.1; Fischer, 2003 [cited in Stopper, eds, pp.5-11). This positions SHRM to have limited perspectives on employee motivation and satisfaction hence observed outcomes characterized by high employee turnover. The motivational factors should be tailored based on employee characteristics as a function of cultural diversity and its implication of employee satisfaction and motivation (Hofstede, 1980, pp.12-4). The employee characteristics should be used to form basis for translating employee work attitudes into elements that drive productivity and performance sustainability (Epstein & Howes, 2006). The employee motivation and satisfaction rationale should be structured on capabilities of managing millennial employees that are replacing the Generation Xers and Baby Boomers in the workplace (Gardener & Eng, 2005). Millennial employees are institutionally micro-managed human capital that has been raised by Generation Xers through instilled self-esteem and value of self-ego (Eisner, 2005). As a result, the millennial employees that form greater percentage of workforce demonstrate increased turnover if the organization doesn’t offer non-monetary benefits or recognize the efforts of employees. The millennial employees are hopeful and practical and have higher regard for communication or rating on their organizational input in terms of performance index. The element of hopefulness makes millennial employee civic minded and always looking forward for greater good of a task (Larrabee & Robinson, 2009). Millennial employees have strong attachment to the value of outcomes of their work. Millennial employees have strong value for social networks that is driven by millennial employees’ affluence for team work. Strategies for motivation of millennial employees should seek to satisfy millennial employee thinking perspectives, what they value in the workplace, their communication and empathetic attitudes and social expectations (Larrabee & Robinson, 2009). Thus, motivational strategies should leave room for millennial employees to exercise their freedoms and realize their social expectations (Eisner, 2005). The strategies for millennial employee motivation strategies should seek to realize aspects like relevance, relationships and resourcefulness of the work environment. The hypothesis below summarizes impacts of employee motivation and satisfaction on millennial employees

• Hypothesis 3A: use of monetary benefits as foundation for employee motivation and job satisfaction does not contribute into employee retention, motivation and job satisfaction
• Hypothesis 3B: the development of employee motivation program should incorporate capacity to provide employee psychological contract
• Hypothesis 3C: leadership and management style as a function of organizational culture impacts on capacity of an organization to institute and implement best practices for employee motivation and job satisfaction

Millennial employees are job-specification-specific (Epstein & Howes, 2006). Unlike the non-millennial employees who can tolerate different organizational structures and remain in the organizations when exposed to poor employee motivators, millennial employees complain and leave the organization (Paul, 2001). Millennial employees are receptive to employee motivation structures and capacity for organizational identity. Performance of millennial employees could be decreased by failure to rate their performance or provide results of survey on attributes of productivity. It emerges; organizational strategies that were utilized to motivate generation Xers and Boomers are not applicable to millennial employees (Pfeffer, 1998). It is not possible for organizations to run different employee motivations concurrently. Absorption of millennial employees into organizational structures has presented a management dilemma subject to diversity of millennial employee needs for motivation and failure of the organizations to depart from traditional methods of employee relations to provide organizational climate for motivation (Daft, 2004). Millennial employees have employment needs mind sets that are different from the Generation X and Baby Boomers mind sets for job satisfaction. This has made it difficult for organizations to develop framework for increasing millennial employee motivation and managing risks of turnover. Remuneration and job flexibility that form basis for employee motivation have been established to have little impact on the millennial employees’ change of positive attitudes towards degree of job satisfaction (Mansoor, 2007). The following hypothesis summarize this paragraph

• Hypothesis 4A: the rationale for employee motivation and job satisfaction program should integrate job specifications and measures for task performance in order to enhance employee motivation
• Hypothesis 4B: incapacity of organization to identify motivation strategies for millennial employees has put organizations at risks of future competitive workforce due to increased employee turnover
• Hypothesis 4C: different categories of employees have different requirements for job satisfaction and motivation

Task management and organizational operations demonstrate low efficiency where organizations have higher percentage of millennial employees but utilizes traditional employee motivation strategies to reward employee performance, to engage employees to deliver value to the organization or manage employee task-time management (aaker, 2004). In some organizations, where innovation process for driving strategic employee-employer relations towards sustainable productivity level of employees is not functional, the organizations have ignored the element of motivating millennial employees and presumed, nature that helps to establish organizational isostacy, will prevail and though turnover of millennial employees will be high, possibly, the organization will be left with employees who have sense of job commitment (Paul, 2001). This human resource management positioning, though not strategic or utilizing any principle or theory of employee strategic management has made organizations to have lesser millennial employees who will hopefully form core employees that the organization can train and develop for future workforce (Oblinger, 2003). The work environments have changed through entry of millennial employees who value social networks, work flexibility and consultation. Strategies for motivating millennial employees should be structured to fit millennial quest for work-lifestyle balance.

Thesis statement

Petroleum industries employee retention is minimal due to risks of organizations to conduct SHRM SWOT analysis relative to organizational PEST structure (Mansoor, 2007). SHRM as a function of SWOT analysis ought to be conducted as business planning phase. Employee satisfaction and motivation that influence on employee retention, productivity and capacity to demonstrate citizenship behavior forms basis for organizational situational analysis which ought to be used a benchmark for charting the way forward in terms of SHRM policies and planning (Yerema & Caballero, 2009). Employee satisfaction ands motivation is derivative of employee job security and sustainability of employee benefits. Recent changes in the petroleum industry in Omani are positive indicator that SHRM with regard to employee motivation are below par. The Qatar was traditionally under monopoly of National Oil Company which failed to institute employee motivation and satisfaction as more competitive companies emerged to serve the same market (Mansoor, 2007). As a result of increased investment in oil and gas industry in Qatar, employee turnover in National Oil Company increased. The national Oil Company that has failed to identify relationship between monetary and non-monetary benefits for employee motivation suffered employee shortages. Other oil and gas companies implemented competitive employee relations, employee referral programs and employee personal development programs. There has been increasing shortage of labour for the oil and gas companies and cost of employee recruitment has increased in Qatar. The figure 4 below summarizes the construct of employee job satisfaction and motivation.

The Qatar Petroleum have inadequate structures for implementing 4C model, Hofstede cultural dimension management which make it impossible to measure capacity to implement 4C model variables (Pfeffer, 1998; Daft, 2004). The Qatar petroleum SHRM have demonstrated decreasing capability to manage conflict between cost effectiveness and congruence components of 4C model and mechanism they could be integrated into SHRM. This has made it almost impossible for the Qatar SHRM to distinguish key factors that should be integrated into HRM to contribute into sustainability of employee satisfaction and motivation (Ayse, 2008). As a result, the Qatar petroleum have inadequate structures for improving and creating value on employee HRM as a function of satisfaction and motivation or utilizing emerging technologies to improve working conditions of employees or restructure employee terms of work (Plikynas, 2008). This has incapacitated ability to increase or gain value from 4C model of personnel management.

The petroleum industry is affected greatly by unsystematic risks (Avnet & Michel, 2004). Unsystematic risks for instance labour, employee dispute management, capacity to adopt emerging development in information technology and benchmarking of best practices in HRM have made Qatar petroleum to lag behind in employee satisfaction and motivation. The unsystematic risks that affect the petroleum industry are unique and predisposed by internal environment of the organization. Studies have documented internal factors that impact on organizational unsystematic risks can be managed through portfolio diversification (Mansoor, 2007). Attitudes of investors as a predisposing factor to unsystematic risks have been identified to augment employee dissatisfaction. Emotional risks of investors contribute into unsystematic risks. Cohort studies on employee satisfaction have determined there is no formula that is appropriate for managing sustainable employee satisfaction and motivation (Cohen & Eduardo, 2004). Studies have determined that investor risk tolerance and capacity to adopt and implement best practices for employee satisfaction and motivation impacts on sustainability of the employee level of satisfaction that translates into productivity and employee level of ownership (Fenelle, 1996). Many investors in petroleum industry don’t understand influence of cultural factors in employee motivation and mechanism cultural factors could be integrated into employee motivational theories to bring about employee satisfaction. This dissertation addressed employee motivation, satisfaction and reward schemes in Qatar petroleum to identify current status of employee motivation and satisfaction.

Goals and objectives

1. To determine the current status of employee motivation and job satisfaction amongst Qatar petroleum hence or otherwise determine mechanism of implementing best employee motivation and satisfaction strategies
2. To determine factors that impact negatively on employee motivation and job satisfaction in Qatar petroleum and measures in place to improve employee motivation and satisfaction
3. To determine and investigate the influence employee motivation and job satisfaction has on employee retention, organizational employee ownership and employee capacity to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior.

Expected outcomes of study

The study findings will contribute into determination of current status of oil and gas industries in Qatar with respect to employee motivation and job satisfaction. The study findings will help to establish rationale for development of sustainable employee motivation and job satisfaction. The study findings will contribute into development of employee motivation and satisfaction framework that would contribute into employee work-life balance realization, capacity of organization to retain its human capital and measures that need to be put in place to mitigate risks of employee turnover.

Theoretical framework of the study

This study builds on 4C’s model of human resources management. The 4C model was developed by Harvard Business researchers in 1980 in order to investigate SHRM at a micro-organizational level as opposed to organizational instrumental tasks to productivity on basis of employee recruitment, selection processes, training and development, employee appraisal, maintenance and performance measurements (Jacobs, 2004). Effectiveness of employee satisfaction and motivation is based on commitment, competence, congruence and cost-effectiveness. The organizational capacity to gain from employee satisfaction and motivation should be structured on improvement of 4C (figure 5).

Application of a 4C model demands analysis of external analysis of a business environment as a function of PEST Analysis as well as internal environment in order to determine SWOT position of the organization (Spengler, 2009). Employee satisfaction and motivation depends on organizational management of its strengths and weaknesses. The strengths and weaknesses of satisfaction and motivation levels provide operational perspectives of organizational employee ownership relative to employee satisfaction and motivation (Edwards, 2003). Organizational SWOT analysis helps to identify mechanism through which an organization can identify best fit application for 4C model hence capacity to identify threats and opportunities for 4C integration into managing employee satisfaction and motivation as vital tools in strategic HRM (Edwards & Rees, 2005). The study integrates Hofstede Cultural dimension of collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and femininity and its role in implementation of best human resource practices for sustainable employee satisfaction and motivation relative to employee motivation, satisfaction and capacity to provide psychological capital (Berry & Grieves, 2003). The Hofstede cultural value dimensions on SHRM influence capacity for managing employee perception of organizational commitment on employee welfare and reflection of human thinking on organizational employee HRM (Hofstede, 1980). The study further incorporates extant motivational theories on strategic HRM practices in order to identify relationships with Hofstede cultural position hence determine mechanism through which employee satisfaction and motivation could be structured to improve employee retention and reduce employee turnover. The study use of extant motivational theories on strategic HRM was meant to add knowledge on validity and reliability of Qatar petroleum culture strategic HRM and mechanism it has been integrated into internationalization strategy framework for managing employee satisfaction and motivation (figure 6).

Organization of the dissertation

The previous section determined the impacts of employee motivation and satisfaction and mechanism it affects on employee performance and productivity. The immediate section addresses the literature review and provides analysis of different motivational theories and mechanism they contribute into employee motivation and satisfaction.

Literature review

Introduction

This section reports on literature review on employee motivation and satisfaction through use of different motivational theories and models. The section reports on different methods of study that have been used in previous research work on employee motivation.

Organizational capacity to create sustainable employee satisfaction and motivation is not based on monetary benefits (Herzberg, 1968). Petroleum industries SHRM are structured on monetary benefits as a form of employee retention without integrating non-monetary benefits in form of employee psychological contract which influences functionality of employee psychological capital (Koh et al, 2007). Employee motivation strategies translate into increased employee performance and productivity. Motivation theories on employee productivity and performance have identified communication channels and structures and capacity of an organization to integrate upstream, downstream and horizontally impact on employee perception of power distance and certainty of their job security. Case control studies have determined employee satisfaction level increases with increasing motivation and clarity of communication channels which contribute into employee sustained productivity (Nicholson, 2003). An organization gains sustainable productivity of employees if its SHRM is structured towards sustainability of employee satisfaction and motivation. Longitudinal studies have documented that employee motivation contributes into sustained employee productivity if the motivation is structured on non-monetary benefits (Edwards, 2003; Fisher & Torbert, 1991). Employee SHRM practices should incorporate best practices for attaining motivated human capital by ensuring hygiene factors to employee motivation are present even though they might not contribute into employee motivation or satisfaction when they are absent. The organization capacity to create environment for employee motivation should be based on building sustainable employee confidence on organizational employee commitment on employee welfare (Brewster et al, 2007). The structure for employee motivation should incorporate capacity to achieve employee trust on organization and hence realization of employee satisfaction with their responsibilities. Case controlled studies have determined insufficiency to provide hygiene factors that contribute into employee motivation has capacity to contribute into employee decreased productivity and cultivate foundation for increasing employee turnover (Martin et al, 2005).

Incapacity of employees to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior contributes into decline in employee work or task performance or propensity of the employees to leave the organization for competing firms that provide and meet employee psychological contract and hygiene factors to employee motivation and satisfaction (Lockett, 2005). Incapacity of an organization to motivate its employees results into employee capacity to reduce productivity. Organizations that fail to achieve targeted productivity or achieve capacity for marginal revenue do so subject to poor employee motivation strategies. Inadequate policies on employee motivation contribute into vulnerability of an organization to fail to manage its operating capital which results into financial risks (Liu, 2005; Fisher & Torbert, 1995). Organizations should manage employee satisfaction based on motivational theories that have evolves from Hawthorne’s effect theory to Hertzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory (figure 7).

Employee motivation theories have determined that integration of employee motivational factors into SHRM contributes into increase of employee performance and productivity (Naoum, 2003). Employee motivation enhances employee job satisfaction which cultivates positive employee attitudes towards organizational commitment to employee welfare. Employee level of satisfaction, based on Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne’s research, is increased through positive management of employee attitudes. Hawthorne studies on employee satisfaction determined identification of employee performance creates opportunities for developing organizational special attention of individual performance of an employee (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Longitudinal studies on Hawthorne’s effect on employee motivation and satisfaction determined employees performance is increased by singling employee’s performance. This makes employees to recognize the organization is concerned on individual work performance and breeds environment for increased individual employee performance (Steeves, 1997). Capacity of an organization to demonstrate positive employee welfare impacts positively on employee perception of sustainability of their jobs hence enhances employee job security. Case controlled studies on Hawthorne effect have determined singled-out employees on their performance through employee rewards for productivity creates employee ownership (Nicholson, 2003). Employee ownership structure extends from traditional employee management framework where employees are considered as part of the organizational system. Organization considers employees as part of active stakeholders that influence on the quality and lead times. This positioning concurs with the principles of lean manufacturing as a function of management of waste and accumulation of inventory in the manufacturing cycle. It is structured towards enhancing qualities of Just-In-Time strategic tools that create value to the customer through alignment of marketing and logistics strategies to 4P (Product, Price, Place and Promotion) model of marketing mix (Lippitt & Schmidt, 1967). The capacity of an organization to deliver employee satisfaction creates an equilibrium point where the employee’s perception of organizational commitment to their welfare meets objective interests of employees. Thus, the intersection of employee objective interests in a job and organizational objective interests in human capital development enhances productivity of the firm. Case controlled studies have identified there exists a positive correlation between employee ownership and employee motivation and performance (Marmot, 2004).

In some instances, employees have failed to identify with organizational ownership strategies. This arises when the employees fail to perceive rationale of the organizational psychological contract (Eisner, 2005). Psychological contract is a function of psychological capital and influences on efficiencies of human capital and organizational capital. Psychological contract denotes things that employer ought to deliver to employees although they are not laid down in the employment contract like flexibility of job and family-life-work balance (Epstein & Howes, 2006). Psychological contract impacts on capacity to achieve employee retention. The employees should be able to identify with changes in trends of employee ownership and direction of the organization’s HRM strategies. The employees are more satisfied when they are able to perceive the benefits associated with the SHRM practices. In some instances, ownership of employees includes capacity of organization to deliver employee collective voice in industrial dispute management, employee relations programs and employee personal development programs (Daft, 2004). Collective voice of employees is derivative of employee satisfaction subject to employee perception of representations. Employee voice influences on employee productivity. The organization should structure employee motivation on Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs model (figure 8).

Organizations can develop sustainable employee satisfaction and motivation programs through use of Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs model (Buckingham, 2007). The Maslow’s model gains currency in employee motivation through incorporation of employee ownership as stakeholders. The capacity of employees to own organizational shares provides employees with incentives for increased commitment to organizational corporate objectives. This has been found to increase employee motivation (Robert, 1988). The rationale of share ownership and capacity to enhance productivity is based on employee need to improve productivity of organization in order to gain financial dividends. Maslow’s Theory of Needs posits that employee motivation is directly proportional to organizational ownership and control hence capacity for innovation of employees (CNN.Com, 2009). The organization, through management of employee satisfaction and motivation gains payback from its commitment to invest in employee product development and process innovation (Greatplacestowork.ie, 2010). Employee satisfaction is not foundation for increasing employee productivity but a foundation for gaining value from employee tacit knowledge and capacity to gain from employee talents which translates into profitability of the organization in the long term (figure 9).

The organization framework for employee satisfaction and motivation should incorporate McGregor’s model for motivation through use of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y (John et al, 2009). The McGregor’s Theory X for employee motivation recognizes employees have vulnerability to dislike work and have capacity to do whatever it takes to avoid their tasks. This implies, employees ought o be controlled and directed in order to deliver their tasks. McGregor Theory X indicates employees sometimes need to be threatened in order to make an effort to deliver tasks to requirements. According to McGregor, employees have capacity to demonstrate their tasks when they require their jobs to have guaranteed security (Koh et al, 2007). The McGregor Theory Y advances Theory X on need for employees to be directed to perform and requirement of employees to perform tasks that they believe in. thus, employee motivation should be structured on employee belief systems which should incorporate employee cultural element in motivation and satisfaction.

Employee collective voice through unions increases employee motivation. The collective voice (figure 10) on employees should form basis for employee shareholder trusts. Integration of collective voice into employee capacity to own and control organization direction increases employee satisfaction and motivation (Pfeffer, 1998).

McGregor theory Y (table 1) affirms positive incentives that meet employee expectations increase employee motivation hence strategies for employee satisfaction should be structured towards enhancing positive incentives (Lippitt & Schmidt, 1967). Longitudinal studies on employee satisfaction based on Theory Y determined employees seek responsibilities in order to demonstrate their work competence. Inability of organization to provide required employee responsibilities decreases employee motivation. The commitment of organization on employee welfare contributes into employee satisfaction via financial incentives, improved communication and consultation. The Ethnographic study identified communication and consultation level as determinants of employee motivation. These motivators increase employee satisfaction if employee shareholding trusts are integrated into the SHRM practices. As a result, the organization develops framework for building a lasting employee confidence and faith, trust and ownership.

The organization should develop employee motivation and satisfaction based on Herzberg’s motivator-Hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1968). Herzberg’s motivator theory identifies employee motivators as key to sustainability of employee satisfaction. The organization should provide hygiene factors that enhance capacity for employee motivation through use of employee satisfiers. This should be based on capacity to implement strategies that enhance employee achievement through employee task feedback and task performance feedback. The SHRM should not consider or treat employees as different organizational assets. Sustained employee motivation makes employee have desire to innovate and actively participate in development of organizational sustainable solution that have capacity to enhance competitive advantage of the firm. The nature of the employee tasks determines capacity to employ Herzberg’s motivator-Hygiene theory hence capacity to structure employee framework for responsibility and advancement hence realization of employee satisfaction level. Based on employee satisfiers, the organization should adopt participative management styles to employee motivation management. The organization should measure employee attitudes to task feedback, communication and employee relation through use of employee attitude surveys (Porter, 2008). The attitude surveys could contribute into development of construct for employee career development and training. Attitude surveys make it possible for an organization to determine position of employee motivation and its impacts on productivity. The motivation could be enhanced by creation of employee trusts that is independent of organizational or corporate objective interests and policies.

Longitudinal studies on SHRM for employee motivation and satisfaction identified globalization of organizational business systems are structured towards contributing into divergence or convergence of organizational human resource best practices (Brewster & Hegerwisch, 1994 [Cited in Brewster and Hergerwisch, eds]). This is dependent on mode of globalization that an organization adopts either globalization from above or globalization from below (Chow et al, 1991). Sustainability of organizational best practices depends on organizational structures that ensure the organization has a centralized business system control that conform to organizational business autonomy (De la Torre, 1990). Best practices in HRM involve growth of employees professionally through provision of incentives like employee training and development, management of employee relations and employee referral programs. With evolution of information technology, best practices in SHRM have revolutionized through use of e-learning to deliver cross cultural training, and provision of hardship allowances. Human resource best practices involve transfer of knowledge (figure 11) through use of cross functional teams.

Human resource transfer policies influence on employee personal needs realization and capacity for implementation of equity theory in employee motivation. Equity theory affirms employee motivation should enhance organizational employee perception on its employee commitment (Robert, 1988). It recognizes fair treatment of employees as a driver fro sustained employee motivation. The organization should identify mechanism through which upward social comparison of its employee motivation structure relates to organizational downward social comparison. Upward social comparison has been determined to contribute into employee dissatisfaction while downward social comparison contributes into increased employee satisfaction (Berry & Grieves, 2003). The capacity for an organization to achieve competitive advantage from employee satisfaction and motivation is based on capacity of organization to redesign job description in order to integrate element of employee motivation and hence performance as a function of employee upwards and downwards social comparison. The organization can adopt strategies like job enlargement. Enlargement of a job involves horizontal expansion of employee job description such that it results into increase of the employee number of tasks and responsibilities (Lockett, 2005). This helps to increase employee workload and has been identified to contribute into increased employee capacity to perform and deliver tasks. The organization can redesign employee job description through enrichment of the employee jobs that involves vertical expansion of employee job description such that it increases employee autonomy. The vertical expansion of employee tasks results into increased employee responsibilities and capacity of employee to participate in decision on the performance and productivity of the organization (Martin et al, 2005). This has effect of increasing employee perception on organization commitment and confidence on their skills and abilities. Vertical expansion of jobs results into increased employee authority over decisions and capacity to make employees independent in terms of decision making. Cohort studies have determined employee job description could be redesigned such that it is a function of job rotation (Michael, 2000). Job rotation equips employees with multi-tasks capacities such that the employees can represent the organization under different capacities of decision making. It helps to broaden employee skill sets and capability to expand their scope of experience. Job redesigns based on motivational theories should be structured on employee motivational tools for instance capacity to achieve employee work schedule options (Kersley et al, 2006). This could be enhanced by integration of employee recognition programs for individual performance or contribution in a work group. The organization could implement employee variable pay programs based on employee performance and productivity.

Job characteristics and employee motivation

The employee motivation and satisfaction structure should be built on employee job characteristic model (figure 12).

Employee satisfaction and motivations is increased if the employees can identify with the task and identify task significance and value it adds to corporate growth. The skill varieties influences on employee level of consultation (Edwards & Rees, 2005). Skill development is achieved through organizational employee training and development. The organization should develop programs for employee skill-set recognition. Recognition should seek to reward positive employee performance. Through reward programs for performance the organization gets its message of commitment to employee productivity hence promotes capacity for employees to desire to be recognized for their efforts (Blyton & Turnbull, 2004). The employee reward and recognition structure should be easier to implement and understand. It should be communicated to employees. The recognition rationale should be equally powerful for the organization based on corporate and organizational objectives as well as meeting employee objective interests in jobs (Chapman & Ward, 2004). The organization should identify elements that could contribute into sustainability of recognition and rewards programs as employee motivators. The rationale for employee reward and recognition program should outline the structure of employee recognition since by merit, all employee qualify for organizational rewards and recognition (Torbert, 1987). The employees are motivated if the employee behavioral attitudes based on task characteristic and task significance are outlined and communicated to employees to emulate. The organization should identify the actions that the employee is being recognized for. The organization achieves capacity to promote the employee behavior that is recognized or awarded if the actions of the recognized employees match the actions specified (Kliatchko, 2005). Employees get demotivated if line managers and supervisors choose employees for recognition or rewards at random without any criteria for recognition or actions that deserve to be recognized. Organizations that have employee recognition or rewards as “employee of the month” don’t achieve targeted employee performance, motivation and satisfaction. Many employee satisfaction and motivation programs fail to impact positively on employee motivation because they are not preceded by recognition events and management uses monetary benefits to reward employee performance (Nicholson, 2003). Periodic recognition of employees creates a normal routine that dilutes the essence of employee motivation. Monetary benefits have been identified to have short run impacts on employee motivation hence don’t boost employee work and task performance in the long run.

The organization should develop rationale for employee reward program through use of employees. This makes it possible for the employees to provide feedback on what innovation need to be recognized hence make it possible for the organization to develop an employee driven compensation system for performance (figure 13)

Many organization employee satisfaction and motivation programs don’t provide opportunities for balancing employee current performance and employee performance improvement. Recognition of employees for non-improvement doesn’t contribute into employee motivation or create environment for employees to develop (Aaker, 2004). The organization should build its motivation and satisfaction program on employee improvement and performance. The organization should create opportunities for employee intellectual growth through provision of tasks challenges that breed creativity and innovation. The organization should have performance metrics, maintained database for employee performance and improvements and recognize employee actions that are aligned to corporate objectives (Porter, 1980). The reward should be communicated to employees through organizational print or electronic media. Announcement of employee performance through employee recognized channels for organizational updates makes it possible for the organization to create an atmosphere for competition. The rewards and recognition should be personalized to recognize efforts of employees that have made a difference in their tasks and responsibilities.

The organization inability to gain value from employee motivation programs arises from the organization framework for employee satisfaction and motivation. Organization strategies for employee motivation programs are characterized by set up of employee competition for organizational limited rewards and recognition (Cakar, 2003). The organization fails to define methodologies for rewarding or recognizing employee efforts which create environment for suggestive criteria for employee motivation and recognition. The employees should not be rewarded on recommendations from peers. Organizations have failed to achieve employee satisfaction because they use employee promotions as a form of employee reward and recognition (Kersley et al, 2006). This creates conflict of interest on framework of employee motivation since it contributes into loss of control of leadership ethics and meritable features for employee promotion. Employees should be promoted internally if the employee demonstrate capacity for organizational vision, identify with the organizational values and corporate vision and corporate statement, and have support skills and experience on people management. Use of promotions as a form of employee recognition for efforts creates employee competition for promotion which shifts focus on employee performance to capacity of employee to gain favours from the team responsible for promotion of employees internally (Argyris & Schon, 1974). Many organizations fail to achieve sustainable employee job satisfaction because they use traditional appraisal systems to promote employee satisfaction which doesn’t create environment for employee motivation (Meisinger, 2007). The rationale for promotion rests on capacity to identify measurable actions that deserve rewards and forge for achievement of the goals of action oriented recognition of employees.

The organizational capacity to gain value from employee motivation rests on capacity to recognize and identify with employee autonomy (Lockett, 2005). Employee motivation strategies should deliver employee freedom, flexibility and independence. The organization should have structures for employee task feedback which help employees to identify their performance index and hence identify mechanism through which they could improve on their performance index based on task feedback rationale. The capacity for the organization to use task feedback to identify rationale for employee motivation provides sustainable framework for managing employee motivation. Thus, the organization could utilize task feedback in order to establish teams that have common approaches to problem solution and mitigation (Fischer, 2003). The organization can motivate employees by developing problem solving teams that identify problems that affect productivity and performance and communicate outcomes to employees for implementation (Bushe & Gibbs, 1990). The organizational problem solving groups should be formed from employees that are identified from the same department or line of production and have equivalent level of expertise or level of organizational hierarchy. The selected teams should be able to meet regularly to update on problems on employee management, motivation and satisfaction in order to develop a framework for employee motivation that could contribute into improvement of organization production processes and capacity to adhere to task specific procedures and functionality. The organization could develop and design self-employee managed workgroups that are characterized by a highly autonomy such that the groups manage their own activities without external influence from management (Martin et al, 2005). This creates employee independence and prepares employees to think on solutions that could improve processes. It makes it possible for employees to be independent thinkers hence breed capacity for employee creativity. The organization should set achievable goals and task milestones for the self-employee managed groups which should be governed by structures for work scheduling and hence provide basis for employee individual evaluation of performance hence capacity for employee individual recognition for rewards (Gardener & Eng, 2005). Increased employee motivation has been identified to be positively correlated to efficiencies of cross functional groups. Cross functional groups should be composed of employees that have equivalent expertise and skill sets and have equivalent organizational hierarchical status but sourced from different departments of the organization. The cross functional teams identify performance efficiencies of the different groups and departments hence identify areas where deficiencies in production occur (Levit, 2009). The cross functional teams create competitive advantage to employee motivation if different personnel are given opportunities to pool intellectual resources that could contribute into development of the organization. This has capacity to breed foundation for new ideas, new problem solutions and coordination processes hence creating environment for innovative processes.

Employee satisfaction has been identified to be dependent on employee workgroup cohesiveness. Cohesiveness of an employee for specific workteam is capacity of an employee to demonstrate desire to remain or perform group tasks with specific employees (Currid, 2007). The employee cohesiveness in a specific workteam is demonstrated through employee resistance to external forces in an organization that might result into shift of employee from one workteam into another (Eisner, 2005). Employee satisfaction is increased by presence of interpersonal cohesiveness within the organization which creates environment for employee growth of strong workteam bonds and increased employee liking for each others contribution to task delivery procedures. Interpersonal employee cohesiveness creates environment for realization of task cohesiveness which builds sustainable strong employee commitment to tasks amongst the workteam (Finkelstein, 1992). Employee motivation has been found to be a product of cohesiveness of the teams. In many organizations that lack employee satisfaction, the problem arises from incapacity to structure employee interpersonal cohesiveness or lack of focus on interpersonal employee cohesiveness (table 2).

The organization should build employee motivation and satisfaction through efficiencies of teams. The organization should identify skill sets of employees at personal level in order to identify capacity for participative effectiveness in consultation and performance of teams (Tealdi & Bruni, 2005). The organization should identify problem solving skills, technical skills, functional skills and how they relate to interpersonal skills and people skills of the employees in order to develop basis for team motivation by exploiting values of cohesiveness of employees. The employee’s motivation should be increased by making employees accountable for quality of their tasks and responsibilities. An organization group’s accountability level is higher if the teams are made up of small number of employees (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). The organization should build mutual accountability of employees and individual accountability if it needs to achieve competitive advantage from employee satisfaction and motivation.

The resource based view of employee best practice management and capacity to realize sustainable employee satisfaction and motivation identifies organizations gain competitive advantage by ensuring organizational resources are used to develop capabilities of employees to deliver tasks (Eisenhardt, 1988). Organizational competitiveness in terms of best practices in HRM gains value through use of resource based view model in order to develop policies for HRM towards capacity to enhance employee expectations for job satisfaction and motivation. Resource based view model does not account for Contextual factors that impact on employee satisfaction or contextual factors on employee motivation and their impacts on SHRM. Incapacity of resource based view to integrate contextual factors on employee satisfaction and motivation emerges from failures to identify the role of organizational settings in implementing best practices for HRM (Ferner, 1997) that could contribute into employee satisfaction and motivation. This is because, based on case controlled studies, contextual factors for instance the national culture impacts on the rationale of organizational HRM strategies for employee motivation and their sustainability in driving organizational performance and competitiveness.

Employee training and development programs

Organization can achieve competitive advantage of employee motivation through development of programs that are structured towards investing in its human capital. Employee training and development prepares employees for their future economic development of the organization and enhances employee confidence and provides basis for organization to build sustainable health employee-organization relationships (Koh et al, 2007). Organizations ought to invest in both technical and non-technical training of employees which helps to build capacity of employees to multi-task and have diversified approaches to management of challenges that affect the organization. This has impacts of improving employee performance. Organizations that invest in employee training and development report increased performance and productivity and achieve economic value from employee retention rate value. The employees are assured of commitment of the organization to enhance their knowledge and skills. This increases job security of the employees. Job security influences employee performance hence a critical element in SHRM practices (Cakar, 2003). Organizational ability to provide job security to its employees signifies organizational commitment to employee retention. Training and development of employees results into development of core competencies that are valued by the organization and which translate into economic growth of the organization thorough incremental output. Employees’ attitudes on the job security, subject to organizational investment in their training and development, has been found to have positive correlation with employee increased productivity as a function of cultural SHRM (Hofstede, 1980). The employees have been identified to have comprehensive long term perspectives on their job sustainability which translate into increasing organizational performance and increasing competitiveness.

Millennial employee motivation and productivity

Millennial employees seek job flexibility as foundation for job satisfaction. A greater percentage of organization’s employees constitute the millennial crop. The productivity of millennial employees is enhanced by increasing freedom on rationale of job description. Millennial employee’s capacity to deliver commensurate output as a function of psychological contract is dependent on rules and responsibilities that are explicitly spelt out. The rules influence on the employee flexibility (Weiss, 2003:p.34). Millennial employees deliver tasks through leadership and guidance, listening to them, providing challenging work environment and provision of organizational structure that is derivative of clear task expectations, well defined objectives and ongoing assessment of millennial task or work progress (Eisner, 2005:p.5) hence increased need for measures for performance and productivity and assurance that the tasks have been done to required standards. Development of strategic framework for motivating millennial employees lies in determination of cultural milieu that millennial generation has grown up in (Paul, 2001:p.44). The millennial employees represent the greatest trained-to-task thus micro-managed labor force (Weiss, 2003:p.33) hence millennial employees pressing demand for more manager-supervisor attention and interest than non-millennial would require. Failure to deliver job expectations of millennial results into increasing job turnover of employees since millennial employees mind set is structured and modeled on satisfaction and motivation levels. Millennial employees are prone to challenging authority (Paul, 2001:p.43) and speaking their mind and does not stick around their work desks when they are not happy or task motivated (Paul, 2003:p.46). Millennial employees demonstrate similar job attributes like non-millennial but if their work characteristic are not met, they speak up their mind or leave organization if nothing is done to remedy the situation thus pressures organization to deliver value of psychological contract (Eisner, 2005:p.12).

This implies, employee satisfaction and motivation is a function of level of employee work-life balance. Satisfaction is based on expectations of employees. Examples of work life balance that organization can invest in have been identified to be capacity of the organization to provide reduced working hours, and offer employees decreasing workloads that can be managed with ease (Rainer & Turban, 2009). This demands organization to re-design employee initiatives that could contribute into employee motivation, satisfaction and retention for instance investing in employee training and development, investing in employee career development and investing in employee personal family life development. The organization should formulate strategies that could enhance employee motivation by making it possible for employees to resist changes in their jobs and tasks through deliverance of employee satisfaction (Herzberg, 1968). The organization should design organization ownership capacity that includes employees. Employees that have shares and ownership or control of organization demonstrate increased employee citizenship behavior and positions organization to achieve benefits of employee ownership and retention (Larrabee & Robinson, 2009). Employees that are stakeholders and have control of organization take part in decisions regarding productivity of the organization since ownership and control form basis for organization to structure employee work life balance that is vital in creating environment for employee motivation and job satisfaction. Organizational control has been documented to have positive correlation with better employee work balance and employee personal responsibilities on economic direction of the company. Organization can provide employee satisfaction through provision of employee telecommuting and development of capacity for job sharing attitudes (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The organization can develop programs that create environment for work-life balance like providing on-site child care programs and on-site fitness centre for its employees as well as nursing facility for catering health care needs of the employees on the job site.

Relationship between Decentralization of organizational systems and employee satisfaction-motivation

An organization that invests in employee training and development demonstrates commitment to employee skills and abilities (Schein, 1987). An organization gains increased value from employee workgroup performance if its decision making processes are decentralized. Decentralization of decision making processes contributes into higher productivity, employee satisfaction and motivation compared to centralized organizational systems that minimize capacity of employees to participate in organizational decision making processes (Koh et al, 2007). Decentralized systems ensure integrated communication strategies could be implemented hence enhancing capacity of service personnel top interact with customers more efficiently. This helps to improve on service encounter which creates positive first impressions of organizational capacity to meet customer expectations (Kliatchko, 2005). Integrated Communication systems have impact of influencing performance of the employees and implementation of HRM policies. Decentralization of SHRM structure results into achievement of non-hierarchical organizational advantages that improve employee satisfaction and motivation (Marmot, 2004). Decentralization of organizational systems ensures low level employees are able to report on organizational information that could drive growth. Low level employees have higher detailed information on organizational challenges and can identify feasible solutions to the organizational problems. Decentralization of organizational system is essential and equips employees with responsibility of responding to organizational operational challenges (Hofstede, 1980). This is instrumental in risk management, risk evaluation, risk assessment and risk mitigation.

Integration of employee satisfaction and motivation has been identified to contribute into development of policies on team work that make it possible for employees to pool their ideas, an element that is vital in risk mitigation and quantification thus making it possible to arrive at best alternative solution (Lippitt & Schmidt, 1967). Team work fosters capability of employee to demonstrate commitment to the organization. Through team work, employees participate in organizational activities which impacts on employee job satisfaction and determine employees’ performance. Team work development is driven by communication strategies that are put in place to create value to organizational psychological contract (Porter, 2008). Communication framework across organizational systems and subsystems determines success of organizational decentralized systems in achieving their objective interests. The information conveyed across organizational systems and subsystems is integrated into organizational operational structure (Naoum, 2003). It is therefore important for organizations to nurture horizontal communications in order to create and pave way for horizontal integration which is vital for achievement of upstream and downstream integration.

Relationship between employee satisfaction-motivation and performance based remuneration

The employee compensation structure is primary contributor of employee satisfaction and motivation (Chapman & Ward, 2004). Monetary benefits are important drivers for employee motivation and job satisfaction. Implementation of organizational performance based remunerations paves way for improvement of performance of the employees. Employee remuneration is a predictor of employee performance (Nicholson, 2003). The employee performance based remuneration in HRM practice is supported by theories like transaction cost theory, control theory and agency theory. Performance appraisals on individual employees should form basis for employee reward schemes. Different measures for employee performance appraisal should be instituted for instance, the level an employee contribute towards achievement of team work goals and objectives (Steeves, 1997). This implies, a positive correlation between managerial HRM practices and remunerations exists and translates into positive outcomes in terms of employee satisfaction and motivation.

Functions of feedback channels and feedback standards in employee satisfaction and motivation

Standards of employee feedback and employee channels of communication determine employee level of job satisfaction and motivation. Communication framework, structure of organizational feedback and channels of communication have been determined to promote or demote employee motivation (Tealdi & Bruni, 2005). Employees are motivated towards performance when they have clear understanding of organizational decisions; understand organizational strategies and sharing of information is promoted across organizational systems and subsystems. This makes employees to feel trusted. Organizations that establish information sharing programs gain from highly motivated workforce. Feedback channels and structure of employee complaint management create opportunities for promoting or demoting employee performance. Organizations ought to develop structures for managing employee complaints (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Employee referral programs play a greater role in managing employee personal problems that affect their performance at workplace.

HRM alignment to organizational strategy and its relationship with employee satisfaction and motivation

The theory of “good fit” posits that there exist positive correlations between HRM strategies and organizational strategies (Porter, 1980). SHRM strategies and organizational strategies should be structured to enhance employee satisfaction and motivation and create environment for employee sustained productivity. The organizational strategies should support HRM strategies if sustainable HRM practices are to be realized.

The study was structured to utilize informed Ethnography which was delivered through use of Ethnographic Narrative Analysis (ENA) and Ethnographic Content Analysis (ECA) in order to determine employee satisfaction, employee motivation and mechanism the Qatar Petroleum could utilize strategic HRM in order to improve employee satisfaction and motivation.

Methodology of the study

Introduction

This section reports on method of study that was used to conduct studies on employee satisfaction, current motivation and reward systems of the Qatar petroleum. The section reports on rationale of the study, method of data collection, the method of selecting the respondents of the study, the research instruments, method of data presentation, method of data interpretation and analysis, ethical issues and mechanism ethical considerations for the study were addressed.

Method of study

The study used non-probability sampling thus qualitative method of research. Non-probability sampling was delivered through use of qualitative approach which relied on informed ethnography or ethnomethodology (Bentley et al, 1992). Ethnographic approach was used because it could be conducted within a very narrow context which targets mechanism a study phenomenon is influenced by different attributes (Hughes et al, 1994) An ethnographic study is always conducted in support of a new study phenomenon and to pave way for future primary research studies by establishing possible direction of future studies and hence or otherwise providing foundation for exploratory studies (Krueger, 1994). This study was used because it contributes into development of a system prototype which could be adopted or refined further based on ethnographic results.

Reasons for using ethnographic study

The informed ethnography was conducted in order to identify mechanism through which Qatar Petroleum implements employee satisfaction, current motivation of employees and reward systems that are used by the Qatar Petroleum (Erlandson et al, 1993). Informed Ethnography was adopted in order to identify attributes that contribute into employee reward system for instance promotion, use of recognition awards either financial or non financial; provision of healthy work environments and financial aspect of the human capital. The study through use of informed ethnography sought to identify attributes that influence on employee satisfaction for instance employee leadership and management strategies (Chun & Plass, 1996), structures for employee job retention, organizational culture and mechanism culture impacts on communication channels and employee-employer power distance and rationale uncertainty levels are management within the Qatar Petroleum (Chun & Plass, 1997). Informed Ethnography was used in order to identify and determine capacity for Qatar Petroleum to provide for employee collective voice and capacity for work life balance as a function of work flexibility. Informed ethnography involves participant’s observation and interactions with study respondents in their natural workplace environments (Ericsson & Herbert, 1980). By using the informed ethnography, the ethnographer takes the stance of the end-user of the study phenomenon namely capacity for employee satisfaction, motivation and rewards systems which make it possible for the ethnographer to visualize outcomes in terms of benefits and challenges that the end user might be exposed to in order to help in development of new models of diverting challenges that may affect the end user with regard to employee level of job satisfaction, motivation and recognition (Fetterman, 1998b). The participation of ethnographer as end user results from inability to get real end users who can communicate phenomenological experiences from participation observation.

Reasons for incorporating Ethnographic Content Analysis

Content analysis has been defined as a systemic method for compressing a given quantity or number of words (textual data) by using data reduction strategies to achieve a limited data category (Berelson, 1952). This depends on application of explicit rules of coding (Berelson, 1952). The study adopted content analysis because it results into derivation of inferences objectively and systematically via identification of characteristics of the messages expressed by the study respondents (Holsti, 1969, p.14). Content analysis is not bound to textual analysis, in extends to pictorial analysis, and coding of actions observed in videos. Content analysis was utilized since it makes it possible for a researcher to go through data volumes hence create basis for describing individual, group or degree of social attention on a particular issue that affects job satisfaction, motivation or reward system (Holsti, 1969). Content analysis makes it possible for a researcher to make inferences based on other methods of data collections. Content analysis has application in symbolic data that might not be investigated by other methodologies of research (Krippendorff, 1980).

Study setting for the study

The study was conducted in Qatar Petroleum.

Recruiting of the study respondents

The study respondents were recruited through convenience sampling. The study respondents were recruited through the Qatar Petroleum Public Relations (PR) manager (Saunders et al, 2007).

The study respondents

The study used six Qatar Petroleum management respondents namely the Employee induction and orientation manager, public communication manager, the human resources Manager, public relations manager, occupational health and safety personnel, finance manager and process development manager (Erlandson et al, 1993).

Rationale of the Study

The study sought to interview six key managers in order to identify Qatar Petroleum structures for employee satisfaction, employee motivation and rewards systems for employee productivity and performance. The study sought to interview the six respondents in their work environments in order to determine their performance with respect to employee framework on job satisfaction, motivation, reward systems and capacity for employee demonstration of organizational citizenship behavior (Gibbons et al, 2007). The study further sought to involve use of documents on employee recognition and reward systems, strategies documented for employee motivation and criteria used to reward employee performance and productivity and its capacity to contribute into employee ownership and retention.

Rationale for the choice of the study respondents

The six key managers were chosen for participation in the study due to their power and authority over capacity for implementation of employee job motivation and reward systems. The managers had contact with employees and could inductively determine attributes that impact positively on employee job satisfaction and motivation. Due to their long term interaction with employees, the managers had knowledge on elements that could result into employee job satisfaction, motivation and reward system that promote employee ownership and job retention (Sprandley, 1980). The study use of Qatar Petroleum management employees was based on capacity to identify job characteristics that could result into long employee service life in the Qatar Petroleum, motivators and hygiene factors that could promote job satisfaction and motivation hence capacity for development of an employee retention program.

Method of data collection

The data was collected by using interviews, document analysis and participant observation.

Study procedure

The study utilized observational research by using interviews of respondents and collecting textual data by using video recorder which made it possible to record physical interactions between the ethnographer and the respondents and determination of impact different attributes that impact positively or negatively on employee job satisfaction, motivation and rewards system (Fall, 2003). The procedure relied on TAlk-Aloud Protocol (TAAP) in order to map ethnographer’s-respondents affective and cognitive verbalizations as opposed to THink-Aloud Protocol (THAP). THAP involves description of actions without giving explanations. Process tracing techniques were applied in order to determine validity of processes and their outcomes to end user. In this way, it was possible to identify intervening causal processes for Qatar Petroleum employee job satisfaction criteria, job motivation and reward system sustainability to contribute into employee citizenship behavior, organizational employee ownership, employee increased commitment to tasks and capacity for economically viable organizational capital (thus mapping of causal chain and causal mechanism) and mitigation for deficiencies of the employee job satisfaction and motivation with respect to economically-based market model (Hammersley, 1990) for employee job satisfaction.

Method of data presentation

The data was collected in form of text and video and presented in form of text for analysis by using respondent’s quotations and descriptions and qualitative accounts for Qatar Petroleum employee job satisfaction and motivation and its future feasibility to sustain employee retention rate, organizational employee ownership, employee citizenship behavior, operational efficiencies of organizational processes hence productivity measures, capacity for monetary benefits and influence monetary benefits contributes into employee motivation and job satisfaction and capacity for organizational micro-management of its human capital. The respondent’s accounts were presented in form of a narrative (Agar, 1996).

Method of data analysis

The study used Ethnographic Content Analysis (ECA) as preferred method for data analysis (table one). ECA is a form of reflexive analysis of arguments (Krippendorff, 1980). Ethnographic Content Analysis (ECA) of Qualitative approach contrasts with the Quantitative approach namely Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) based on approaches that is used in data collection, data analysis and data interpretation (Bentley et al, 1992).

The process of data analysis began with getting overview of Qatar Petroleum employee job satisfaction, job motivation and reward systems, and mechanism Qatar Petroleum has structured policies and standards for employee job satisfaction, job motivation and reward system and employee reflection of their organizational structure for employee job satisfaction, job motivation and reward systems (Fetterman, 1998a). The process of data analysis involved analysis of continuum with raw data and measurement of validity of interpretative comments, and quotations through phenomenological reflection in terms of applicability (Yin, 1989). This was carried out in order to bring order to the disordered data that had been collected through video recorder. The analysis involved consideration of reliability and validity of the spoken words, and their applicability, contextual analysis and their internal consistency and specificity of the responses that were given during interview followed by use of data reduction strategies in order to compress the data (Harris & Johnson, 2000).

The process of data analysis of the compressed data involved interpretation and attachment of meanings and significance and inducing descriptive patterns to the textual data and its relationship with Qatar Petroleum employee job satisfaction, motivation and reward system hence or otherwise building pattern or model that represented the study outcomes with regard to Qatar Petroleum rationale for employee job satisfaction, motivation and reward systems (Erlandson et al, 1993). After interpretations and attaching meanings and significance of different attributes that affect employee job satisfaction, motivation and reward systems, the interpretations were reported as findings of the study and conclusion was drawn based on data interpretation (Hom, 1996).

Compliance with ethical consideration

The study complied with different principles for respondent participation in a study that involves human subjects (Groves et al, 2009). This was vital in order to respect the respondent’s autonomy. The study satisfied the principle of voluntary participation and requirement for informed consent where the respondents were informed on the procedures of the study and expected study outcomes like policy implication of the study, goals of the study and how the study outcomes would influence future direction of Qatar Petroleum policies and standards for employee job satisfaction, motivation and reward systems (Singer & Levine, 2003; Singer, 2003a, Singer, 2003b). The study satisfied the principle of anonymity to ensure respondent’s confidentiality was secured.

Limitation of the study

The limitation of the study revolved around the use of small sample size of respondents and in small scale environment (Labott & Johnson, 2004). This is because increasing the scale of environment thus using varieties of respondents could have resulted into increase in costs, communication, coordination and inefficiencies in time management (Bentley et al, 1992).

Limitations of content analysis as applied in informed Ethnography

The study was affected by three primary limitations. The content analysis for Qatar Petroleum was affected by missing information or documented evidence on framework for employee job satisfaction, job motivation strategies or documentation of employee reward systems (Holsti, 1969). This might have contributed into abandoning of the methodology of the study. Some of the Qatar Petroleum policies on employee job satisfaction, job motivation and reward system could not meet minimum requirements for content analysis on construct for employee job satisfaction, job motivation or reward system (Kerlinger, 1979). These deficient observed below average documentation on employee job satisfaction, job motivation and reward system were recorded as stimulants for high employee turnover in Qatar Petroleum and formed basis for framework development for employee job satisfaction, job motivation and reward system (Feterman, 1998a). There were documents that met minimum requirements for content analysis but could not be coded because they missed valuable information based on study variables.

Reliability of the data

Reliability of the data was achieved by ensuring the data classification procedures achieved element of consistency and clarity (Mosteller & Wallace, 1964). Precautions were made to ensure different researchers could use the same data coding to achieve the same study outcomes. Reliability in content analysis and informed Ethnography was decreased by possibilities of ambiguities of meanings of words, definitions of data categories that have been used subject to study variables and rules that the researcher employed in order to categorize data elements (Berelson, 1952). Care was taken in order to improve on reliability coefficient of the data outcomes which was realized by setting up explicit instructions to guide the process of content analysis and informed ethnography. Reliability was measured based on stability or intra-rater reliability that was reported in form of textual content by ensuring repeat of analysis would achieve the same outcomes (Baker, 2006). Reliability was checked to ensure reproducibility could be achieved hence coding used was structured to result into the same textual data for similar data category.

Data validity

Validity was ensured by using information from various departments that are involved in implementation of employee job satisfaction, job motivation and reward systems (Landis & Koch, 1977). A validation study was built into the study design which was structured around triangulation in order to lend credibility to the results of data analysis.

Results and discussion of the findings

Introduction

This section reports on whether the study achieved its goals and objectives. The section reports on the findings that were obtained after collection of the data.

The findings of the study established that Qatar Petroleum (QP) didn’t have structures for employee motivation or framework for employee motivation and reward programs that could have contributed into employee capacity to job retention. The QP Human resource Manager noted that “there has been no adoption of new business systems and new business practices that could have reinforced employee satisfaction, motivation and rewards”. The Human resource Manager further indicated that “QP didn’t have employee satisfaction benchmarking processes that could have been used to identify opportunities for QP process improvement”.

The Framework of QP employee recruitment, motivation and satisfaction

According to the Employee Induction and Orientation Personnel (EIOP) the recruitment procedures “don’t form basis for employee motivation and job satisfaction”. The EIOP noted that the QP doesn’t “promote its own employees”. This has impact of decreasing employee motivation. Incapacity of internal promotion of employees “has made employees feel QP is not committed to employee personal development”. The Human Resources Manager indicated that QP structure for Employee job satisfaction as a function of recruitment policies and standards were not sufficient to contribute into employee job retention. Lack of recruitment policies “was responsible for increasing employee turnover”. This has contributed into increased costs of employee acquisition and has affected QP “bottom-line and top line”. QP based on EIOP has “not exploited economic benefits of recruitment policies as an important element that influences on success of organizational performance and sustainability of productivity” through innovation. The Public Communication Manager noted that “QP doesn’t have competent personnel for every task as a function of skill competencies and knowledge indispensable” that has made it difficult for the QP to implement employee management strategies”. The employees, according to Process Development Manager, don’t demonstrate “right job attitudes and motivation” which has made it impossible to bind work teams or implement shared strategic goals across departments. Work processes in QP were found “to be product of individual initiatives”. The efficiencies of work teams according to EIOP “could not be determined”. EIOP identified culture and poor leadership skills as the causative agent to employee decreased job satisfaction and motivation. Inefficiencies in employee job satisfaction has contributed into decreased capacity for the employees to provide required customer service encounter. The moment of truth subject to service encounter doesn’t provide capacity for customer to perceive sustainability of a health business relationship. This has decreased “market share for the QP”.

The human resource manager cited lack of “standards of recruitment or capacity for QP recruitment benchmark rationale”. Recruitment is not based on “skill competency, experience or task fit”. As a result, QP is not “proactive in its recruitment process hence incapacity for employee motivation and job satisfaction”. The QP employee strategies based on its employee document analysis didn’t demonstrate “level or standards for recruitment that were in place” which made it impossible for QP to benchmark “its capacity for employee motivation excellence”. Thus, QP has not positioned herself for employee motivation based on international standards for employee management. This has contributed into inability of lack of “service quality improvement” in QP, lack of moments of truth for customers based on capacity for satisfaction of service expectations.

The document analysis of QP determined “absence of surveys to determine employee levels of motivation”. The human resource manager noted that “QP didn’t have enough staff hence capability for carrying out surveys was minimal”. This implies, QP didn’t have structures for determining efficiencies of its employee management strategies. As a result, QP could not have had any data “on which it could extrapolate sustainability of its employee motivation and job satisfaction or measure impacts of its employee reward system on employee motivation”. Inability to have data on employee level of motivation proved “QP could not have implemented a nurturing environment for employee motivation”. QP, based on process development manager, “didn’t have capacity to determine employee values and mechanism employee values could have been exploited to enhance employee motivation”. This implies QP employee recognition didn’t have any merit for employee motivation.

The employee induction and orientation personnel noted that “QP employee affinity for job responsibilities were very low”. This had made employee affinity for tasks to contribute into capacity for turnover. The management didn’t demonstrate commitment on implementing “leadership that could nurture employee skills or enforce employee trust and confidence hence incapacity to align rewards program with employee performance”. As a result, appropriateness of the employee rewards for performance “didn’t have any positive outcomes towards employee motivation”.

The public communication manager noted that negative employee motivation “was responsible for customer decreasing level of satisfaction”. As a result, the manager recommended that “internal business systems for QP ought o have been restructured and appropriate strategies for managing employee motivation put in place”. Otherwise, QP development “would be minimal and could easily be exposed into liquidity or financial risks or be placed under statutory management to recover credits”. This was observed because, “Inability to motivate employees results into inability of employees to satisfy customers”. Thus, motivated employees contribute into business systems that perform to customer expectations and service preferences are tailored to meet or conform to market trends”. Public communication manager noted that motivated employees treat customers with courtesy, respect and establish social relationships with customers. This was attributed to inability of QP to develop framework for employee engagement. Employees, based on process development manager, could not demonstrate emotional connection with tasks or demonstrate capacity for “mental absorption of tasks and responsibilities”. Finance manager noted that it was only through employee satisfaction surveys that QP “could have identified employee elements for motivation”. The focus groups had failed to yield positive outcomes because “QP didn’t follow up to determine impacts of focus group meetings on employee motivation” or demonstrate capacity to “reward performance”. Process development manager noted that QP didn’t have competent employees who could develop surveys to identify determinants of “employee motivation”. It was therefore not possible to identify degree of biasness of employee information on motivation and job satisfaction.

Construct of employee motivation

The Human Resources manager noted that “The framework for employee motivation was not aligned towards helping employees to fit in the organization”. Similar observations were made by the Public Communication manager who noted that “the QP employees didn’t demonstrate any relationship with the organizational mission and vision”. As a result, the organizational capacity to manage threat to competition as a function of employee leadership, management and productivity were minimal. Process Development Manager indicated that QP didn’t have structures for “communicating organizational mission statement and value statement to employees for implementation”. This was due to lack of “roles and responsibility outline for the line managers and supervisors” that ought to form a working link between employees and the management. The employee grievances and dispute management was not “structured towards contributing into sustainability of employee motivation”. The Human resources manager proposed that QP “had incapacity to demonstrate capacity to facilitate employee capability to set task timeline and milestones”. This had contributed into “inability of the tasks to lag behind schedule” and incapacity of the organization to gain value from strategic tools like Just-In-Time. As a result, QP demonstrated incapacity to “gain economic value from lean principles of manufacturing that had contributed into “accumulation of wastes along the production cycle”. This had contributed into build up of investor and exposed QP into decreased operating capital.

The Occupational Health and Safety Personnel (OHSP) noted that problems with QP employee motivation were based on “incapacity of QP to develop employee common values and framework for employee motivation that was not based on financial benefits. The OHSP noted that “capacity to align QP objectives and employee objectives has impacts of instilling employee confidence in the organization, enhancing employee organizational citizenship behavior and instilling employee sense of organizational belonging”. The OHSP further noted that QP “capacity for employee commitment as a function of employee training and development was minimal”. This had contributed into inability of employee to identify “degree of organizational fit”. Millennial employees’ turnover was very high as proposed by process development manager “due to inability of millennial employees to determine “construct of their fitness in QP”. The Employee induction and orientation personnel identified “millennial employees have high social connectedness which influences millennial employee job initiatives”. Job initiative, process development manager noted, “is crucial element in millennial employee self capacity to visualize on sustainability of job flexibility”. Inability of organization to align employee “job initiatives into achievable goals” results into failure to align millennial employees to strategic goals of the organization. This means, communicating achievable goals and targets is important employee motivating agent.

The employee induction and orientation personnel further identified incapacity of QP “to use millennial employees during development of QP value, mission and vision statement” contributed into incapacity to manage millennial employee motivation. Similarly, the process development manager proposed need for QP to communicate consistently her vision, value and mission statement to employees for implementation”. This based on public communication manager, results into “clarity of employee job expectations and breed foundation for motivation and job satisfaction”. Departmental Managers of QP were found not to have “ability to help employees determine what every task required”. The departmental managers ought o have capacity to “communicate expected employee task behavior” and communicated task milestones to employees. The QP departmental managers didn’t have understanding of “capacity for task reconciliation and task expectations” which impacted on capacity to measure task milestones. Task milestones should be set in liaison with employees as implementers. Departmental managers were not found to have enquired from employees on rationale for “task expectations” or formula for task completion. This had resulted into inability to “identify employee challenges to task completion or task expectations”. This has resulted into lack of “shared work partnership or progress reports on task milestones”. As a result, task monitoring was not efficient. The departmental managers didn’t use employees to “identify mechanism for task monitoring”. This has resulted into negative outcomes in terms of task milestone management.

Employee competence and motivation construct for the QP

The QP employee job satisfaction “is not structured on capacity for building employee competence”, based on Human resources manager. This implies QP management doesn’t have framework for employee career development which has contributed into “increased employee turnover” as a function of failure to “invest in human capital development”. Thus, “positional redundancy” is characteristic of QP employee management. The employees are not provided opportunity for “career development, or to engage in secondary learning activities that could make employees have diversity of skills. As a result, QP employees demonstrate “incapacity to multi-tasking” that has made it impossible for employees “to assume responsibilities of any employees that resign or are absent due to occupational based problems”. Lack of employee capacity to multi-task has created a scenario where “QP has had very large number of employees”.

The Employee induction and orientation manager noted that “employee training need analysis of QP was not feasible”. The process development manager noted that “incapacity of QP to have sustainable employee motivation has been subject to inability of managers to evaluate employee knowledge, skill-sets and employee skill capacities when assigning tasks”. This has resulted into work groups that have deficiencies in “skills for innovation or capacity to determine measures to implement for process management”. QP employee training need analysis has not resulted into corresponding “benefit of training on employees that ought to be developed”. As a result, QP has not gained from its investment in employee training and development. This is because the structure for employee training and development “is not built on building employee competencies”. This has resulted into a scenario where QP “lacks competent employees that could demonstrate capacity for peak performance based on knowledge resource”.

The public communication manager noted that “QP has not structured its employee motivation on capacity of employee to deliver task or responsibilities assigned”. Thus, management has failed to institute “best practices for employee motivation and job satisfaction”. The capacity for QP to realize employee motivation lies in capacity “to create employee opportunities for excellence, task performance, performance measurements and evaluation and employee task feedback mechanism”. Based on public relations manager, “QP has no environment for challenging employees to productivity or capacity for employee career growth or development”. This has resulted into as scenario where “employees are frustrated by tasks and responsibility deficiencies”.

The human resources manager noted that QP managers and line supervisors “didn’t conduct task analysis to identify requirements of every task and needs for employee motivation and performance”. This meant that the management didn’t have sufficient task needs evaluation and hence could not determine required skills to “successful perform the task”. As a result, employee management strategies of QP could not contribute into “capacity for creating motivational employee opportunities” or contribute into “provision of challenging opportunities to grow employee skills and competencies”. The QP employees didn’t have “job rotations or functional groups and tasks were not delegated hence incapacity for multi-tasking was very low”. QP, based on process development manager, “had not adopted best practices for employee motivation from its competitors” or conducted benchmarking processes to identify deficiencies on employee motivation”.

The occupational health and safety personnel proposed that “QP approaches for employee motivation and satisfaction were not based on adoption of appropriate strategies for motivation”. The employees didn’t have mentors to provide one-to-one on the job training. QP didn’t have environment or procedures for employee learning. As a result, the management had no support for employee learning as was proposed by human resources manager. This had impacted on resource allocation and capacity for promoting employee participation in consultation. The process development manager noted that employee advice, group meetings, focus groups, and provision of resources that support employee tasks delivery capacity had “better capability to contribute into employee motivation”. As a result, QP management didn’t offer required “employee support and protection” which was responsible for high turnover”. The turnover was identified by process development manager as caused by lack of QP to manage employee “job frustrations, doubts on job security and increasing uncertainties on professional development of employees”. This meant, QP didn’t invest resource to develop its human capital which negatively affected employee-QP relationships.

Sustainability of QP reward systems on employee motivation and satisfaction

The Finance Manager noted that the QP reward systems “are based on monetary benefits”. The QP doesn’t have structures for “non-monetary benefits” that could form foundation for employee long term job satisfaction and motivation. The QP, based on Human resources manager lacks a reward system that could contribute into “linkage between rewards for employee consistency in task performance and extrinsic system for employee reward”. This has contributed into “inability of the employees to identify with the organization”. The Public Communication manager affirmed QP “didn’t have policies or standards for communicating employee rewards or any documented evidence on rationale for employee reward system”. As a result, employee rewards “are based on selection or identification of category of employees that are rewarded. There are no “formula for rewarding employee performance and productivity”. The employees reward system for the QP “is not accompanied by reason why specific employee is rewarded”. This implies, the QP reward system could not contribute into employee motivation and capacity for job satisfaction”.

The Employee Induction and Orientation Personnel affirmed the QP “employee induction was not relevant to contribute into employee capacity to understand their roles or understand framework of employee relations”. The Induction and Employee Orientation manager noted that “communication as a vital ingredient of employee motivation and hygiene factor is decreased by high power distance”. Similarly, The Human resources manager agreed QP failure “to have structure for employee reward system has been brought about by lack of QP opportunities that could be used to recognize individual employee performance and productivity hence capacity to identify individual employee achievements and efforts towards organizational innovation”. The Finance manager however indicated failure to have “employee reward systems” has been attributed to “incapacity of QP employee motivation programs to have capacity for linking and developing employee reward structure that has been built via employee input” which has resulted into lack of desired employee organizational behavior.

The QP reward system, based on process development manager, could not “contribute into employee retention” due to lack of employee motivator factors. QP has relied on “informal rewards structures for recognizing employee contribution” to organizational productivity. The Human Resource Manager concurred that “QP failure to achieve benefit from its investment in employee motivation and reward system has been due to lack of integration of extrinsic factors that influence on employee motivation and job satisfaction”. As a result, QP doesn’t provide employee “psychological contract” which included non-monetary benefits that “contribute into enhancement of employee performance” and have “capacity to nurture positive employee task attitudes”. The finance manager noted that if QP “had capacity to develop and implement psychological contract for its employees” it could have positioned itself to gain from gradual employee retention, performance improvement and productivity. Employee non-monetary benefits contribute into capacity for employees “to demonstrate repeated higher performance and positive attitudes towards tasks and responsibilities”.

The Process development manager indicated that QP didn’t have structures in place for “Employee incentives and recognition schemes that could support employee capacity for motivation”. The QP therefore failed to have “sufficient strategic human resource tools for employee motivation”. Lack of employee recognition programs have made it impossible for the QP to “motivate millennial employees that gain increased performance capacity post effort recognition”. The QP remuneration was not based on “capacity for a performance based pay”. Employees remunerations was structured on employee grades which didn’t identify with employee “productivity and economic contribution to the firm”. The QP had prioritized more on On-target earnings that didn’t contribute into employee motivation in the long term. The human resources manager noted that though QP had invested in monetary benefits, “employee productivity and retention was not reflecting QP return on investment”. Finance manager further asserted that QP employee remuneration “based on on-target earnings had not contributed into a feasible linkage between employee individual performances and their remuneration levels. QP had relied heavily on “piece work based payments” which had been internally determined through QP surveys to have no impacts in improving employee job retention. Public Communication manager noted that “piecework payments” had no positive outcomes in terms of employee job motivation in the long run. Inability of QP to gain from piece work based payments was subject to “inability to identify relationship between marginal value of payment and capacity for employee motivation.

The role of employee engagement and employee role ownership

The human resources manager noted that QP level of employee ownership and engagement was “too low to contribute into capacity for empowering employees to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior”. Thus, lack of employee ownership was identified as “leading cause for decreasing employee motivation and job satisfaction”. Finance manager indicated employee motivation “is critical element if an organization will be positioned to manage day-to-day employee issues that affect productivity and performance”. Failure to have ongoing employee engagement had turned out to be a “barrier for employee capacity for productivity and performance”. Inability of QP to engage employees and demonstrate commitment to employee concerns “had resulted into decreased employee commitment to corporate strategy”.

The leadership styles of QP, based on the human resource manager were determined to be “causative agent for employee decreased locus of control”. The use of transactional leadership “could not have supported employee motivation as could have transformational leadership”. Process development manager identified culture as a contributing “factor for QP decreased employee motivation”. QP had “high power distance” which increased level of uncertainty and hence “paved way for employee turnover”. Employee Induction and orientation personnel noted that “QP level of discipline and employee regulations were a limiting factor to employee motivation”. According to Occupational health and safety personnel, “QP required to implement flexibility of roles and responsibilities in order to retain millennial crop of employees”. However, the public relations manager noted that although job flexibility influences on employee motivation “dictatorship leadership had higher role in undermining capacity for employee motivation”. This had “thinned employee capacity for creativity and innovation” due to lack of employee participation in decision making processes”. The process development manager similarly reiterated that “increased employee control and supervision contributed into employee dependence on managers for instructions”. This decreases “employee capacity for independence of thought and decreases employee capacity to develop solutions affecting work systems and work performance”. As a result, noted the process development manager, “decisions that are made do not correspond to practical work settings since they are not based on employee work experiences and performance levels”. This outcome has capacity to “sabotage any benefits of performance based payments”. Human resources manager proposed that “in the presence of high control and supervision, and decreased employee motivation, performance based payments is eclipsed as a function of employee motivation and job satisfaction”.

Stimulant for employee motivation based on performance based payment

The Finance manager indicated that QP employee motivation has failed to contribute into positive outcomes with regard to employee motivation and job satisfaction due to use of “incentive based payments”. The process development manager however disagreed on use of incentive based payments owing to “psychological perspectives on employee motivation” by asserting “incentives don’t have long term impact on employee motivation”. Public relations manager concurred that “monetary benefits as have been used by QP have not translated into employee motivational values”. The Human resources manager noted that the motivational value of monetary incentives should not be based on employee performance stimulation as a function of financial benefits per se rather they should be based on value gain of financial benefits as a form of employee incentives. The public communication manager expounded further that “monetary benefits have limited capacity for realization of employee motivation”. This is because monetary benefits values expire after employee needs are satisfied. This makes monetary benefits to have no sustainable employee motivational properties”. The finance manager noted that in the absence of monetary benefits as incentives, the whole construct for employee motivation looses value. This makes performance based payments a not sustainable “alternative for employee motivation”. This is because, public relation manager noted, “absence of monetary benefits implies employee capacity for increased efforts to tasks and responsibilities are decreased”. This results into loss of value of the concept of “performance based payments” due to lack of sustainability of employee motivation properties.

Influence of employee performance measurements on motivation

The human resources manager noted that “millennial employees are motivated by performance measurements” more than Generation Xers and Baby Boomers”. Millennial employees are micro-managed employee category that value “praise on their work” and being evaluated “on capacity to achieve or exceed expectations”. Thus, feedback on employee performance impacts on employee motivation. The Human resources manager indicated “failure to achieve sustainable employee motivation has been caused by lack of QP to balance employee objective interests with organizational objective interests”. The employee induction and orientation personnel noted that “QP was loosing on millennial employees because it doesn’t communicate to employees on task description and expectations”. The Process development manager identified “need for employee task description, determination of responsibilities and need for increased employee consultation in order to create capacity for work groups and improved employee relations”. Work groups have capacity to create employee relationships that increase capacity for “close departmental partnerships and capacity for shared goals and shared strategies”. Employee mutual agreements, based on human resources manager, were identified to be important ingredient in employee motivation, organization attachment and ensure “capability to measure employee job performances are realized and monitored”. Motivation of employees should be achieved through ongoing “employee performance monitoring” and capacity to “balance needs for employee improvement of performance and productivity”. The QP job tasks “have been characterized by rules and regulations that employee cannot identify with” hence incapacity for QP to achieve employee retention. The job structure of QP could not contribute into sustainability of employee retention due to inability to “provide for employee work life balance”. As a result, QP has not been “involving employees in development of employee regulations, work practices and formulation of performance targets” as observed by the Employee induction and orientation personnel. Employee induction and orientation personnel further noted that the capacity for the QP to achieve measurable employee performance “lies in the capacity to use employees in designing structures for employee productivity and performance”. The rules that govern employee productivity and work performance should be verified and easily understood by the employees. There should be ongoing management and employee communication through “establishment of communication channels that foster and nurture employee capacity to take part in solution development”.

The public communication manager noted that QP didn’t have elements that could constitute “employee motivation and job satisfaction sustainability”. This was brought about by lack of feasibility of “QP employee incentive programs and capacity to define rules for employee reward systems”. QP didn’t have “vision and attainable goals with respect to employee rewards and motivation” which had predisposed incapacity for employees to participate in “innovation or risk mitigation measures”. As a result, the involvement level of “employees cannot support sustainable performance or productivity due to lack of motivator factors”. This ahs been brought about by “QP centralized decision making processes on employee resource management”. The process development manager noted that “employee motivation is founded on decentralization of organizational systems” and capacity for “empowering employees creativity and capacity to take part in organizational ownership”.

The finance manager noted that “reward systems as a form of employee motivation should not have been structured on monetary benefits”. The monetary incentives “should have been separated from the employee remuneration. Financial increase “doesn’t constitute employee incentives”. The QP employee motivation, base don Finance manager didn’t have “metrics for employee performance and evaluation” which meant employee motivation was based on a selection process. This contributed into decreased motivation of employees. The rewards system was not structured on capacity for employee celebration for their contribution into productivity of the QP. Process development manager noted that “culture had played a leading role in inability of QP to have structures for employee job satisfaction, employee engagement and capacity for motivation”. As a result, organizational culture of QP failed to contribute into capacity for managing employee collective attitudes and corresponding behaviors that could have created environment for motivation. The process manager added that “culture plays an important role in determining direction of organizational profitability, mechanism through which employees behave and rationale organization operates”. As a result, QP culture failed to deliver “employee unspoken expectations that are collectively delivered as psychological contract”. The human resource manager noted that the current employee motivation for the QP didn’t have “employee performance standards”. As a result, employees were not “accustomed to any performance standards”. Inability of QP to initiate strategies for changing its organizational culture, based on process development manager, “were based on capacity to gradually change employee attitudes on standards of performance”. In addition, the process of gradual change of organizational culture required “simultaneous change of employee behaviors on productivity and development of construct for employee job satisfaction”. The capacity for QP to gain competitive advantage in employee motivation and job satisfaction “lay in capacity to manage employee values for the job and employee belief system”. QP required developing an organizational culture that could integrate “positive outcomes of internal business environment and external business perception”. This could have been enhanced by capacity “to adopt ethical business perspectives and delivery of moral values for job satisfaction”, as proposed by the process development manager. The process development manager further noted that the QP “conceptual model on employee motivation should be restructured to include employee motivator-hygiene factors.

The future of QP employee motivation, job satisfaction and reward system management

The process development manager noted that QP could improve employee job satisfaction and motivation “by creating environment for psychological contract provision”. This should involve utility of scientific employee motivation paradigms, investing in employee improvement of job security, developing structures for security of job tenure, implementing employee performance based rewards, rewarding employee creativity and creating flexibility of job”. The Occupational health and safety personnel noted that QP could gain competitive advantage in employee retention “through integration of physical, psychological and behavioral elements that influence on employee performance and productivity”. The Occupational health and safety personnel noted that QP needs to “design an organizational culture that could contribute into the right environmental tone for employee motivation and job satisfaction”. The QP, based on viewpoints of employee induction and orientation personnel, “should develop policies that should contribute into capacity for employees to react to them positively and act as enhancers for employee motivation and job satisfaction”. Employee job satisfaction is dependent on “mechanism employees react to organizational motivational elements”. The process development manager cited “employees should consciously or unconsciously be positioned to react positively to organizational work environment, work culture and leadership model and its conceptual foundation”. The construct for employee motivation, based on finance manager should be based on capacity for employees to “perceive positive outcomes for their emotional, physical and psychological commitments on the organization”. Employee motivator elements “should be observable and measurable and be subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation for consistency”. The QP should develop and implement strategies “meant to ensure employee motivator-hygiene factors are not subject to distortion, manipulation or changes unlike the changes impact positively on employee satisfaction and motivation”. The public communication manager noted that the contextual structure for employee motivation and satisfaction should seek to identify with “capacity for employee model for motivation sustainability without possible influence of overlap of interfering elements either emerging from management, internal business environment or external based elements” for instance political factors, institutional based factors.

The process development manager noted that “QP could achieve employee enhanced performance and productivity as a function of motivation and satisfaction through attraction of the right candidates”. QP had not invested in “talent search strategies through internal environmental strategies like investment in employee referral programs”. Employee induction and orientation personnel noted that employees have “knowledge on competent employees that could contribute into innovation and capacity for organizational development and formation of efficient social networks”. Organizational success of QP could therefore be achieved through “use of right talent, human capital development, career development of employees and employee personal development that could contribute into achievement of employee work life balance”. Similarly, the public communication manager noted that QP could gain employee competencies through capacity “to attract and retain adequate as well as perpetual supply of qualified human capital that could support organizational strategies, corporate strategies and business strategies”. The human resource manager concurred that “human capital retention is the core value of sustainable businesses”. As a result, process development manager noted that QP ought to “identify elements that could contribute into employee attraction, employee retention and capacity for employee motivation and job satisfaction” in order to achieve enhanced employee productivity and performance. The employee rewards programs should integrate employee elements that motivate, satisfy and enhance productivity. The process development manager noted that deliberate strategies should be developed in order to attract right candidates, manage poor employee perception on capacity for QP to deliver employee motivation and job satisfaction” and achieve capacity for attracting the quality competent staff to tasks.

The Employee induction and orientation personnel noted that “QP could gain competitive advantage from investment in employee motivation is it could develop framework for retaining employees”. Employee’s strategic management “has been identified as key to capacity for employees to contribute into organizational economic growth”. This happens if the employees can “identify sustainable ongoing mutual benefits from their task and roles. Thus, QP could develop blend “of employee motivator factors, value adding elements and structure a reward program that could motivate and satisfy employee job expectations”. The career lifecycle for the employees “should be integrated into the “employee motivation strategies”. The process development manager QP should define “necessary attributes that could stimulate employees to behave positively towards their tasks and assigned responsibilities”. This should exploit “intrinsic motivating elements and contribute into capacity for employees to identify sense of career achievement, build sustainable employee trust and confidence and communicate positive attitudes on productivity”. The human resources manager noted that “intrinsic factors fro employee job satisfaction have capacity to enhance employee motivation”. QP should invest in tangible rewards for instance performance based payments hence exploit values of “extrinsic employee motivation”. The process development manager identified employee commitment as crucial element “in sustainability of employee job satisfaction and motivation”. This should be gained through structures that enhance capacity for employee engagement.

Conclusion

This section reports on whether the study achieved its objectives or not.

The study achieved its goals and objectives as well as its testable hypothesis. The study identified current status of employee motivation, job satisfaction and framework of QP reward system. The study determined that QP didn’t have framework on employee motivation. Lack of employee motivation was identified as primary cause of employee increasing turnover. QP structures for managing employees didn’t conform to millennial employee job satisfaction and motivation standards. The conflict between QP employee motivation and expectations of millennial employees resulted into incapacity of QP human resource management practices that could not provide necessary motivator-hygiene factors for the millennial employees. QP didn’t have structures for evaluating employee performance and productivity that millennial employees demonstrate increasing preferences on. The QP was found to have no employee work performance measurements or employee feedback processes. The recognition systems for employee performance were not based on merit which resulted into inability to motivate millennial employees that are task specific. The study determined that QP employees didn’t demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior which resulted from inability of QP

to demonstrate employee ownership. This proved hypothesis 1A to be true. QP was found to have communication framework that could not provide environment for employee motivation. As a result, QP employee retention rate and retention rate value were very low. This means QP didn’t gain value from possible investment in employee retention strategies since QP didn’t have structures for employee motivation and job satisfaction which could have contributed or laid foundation for employee retention. This proved hypothesis 1B to be true.

The study findings established QP didn’t have strategic management of employee motivation and job satisfaction. The recruitment practices and procedures were not competent enough to support employee motivation and job satisfaction. QP didn’t promote her internal employees that had knowledge on work systems of QP. This decreased employee confidence on job security of QP and paved way for employee turnover. As a result, QP didn’t demonstrate capacity for employee management or capacity for developing her future human resource. This proved hypothesis 4B with regard to sustainability of future competitiveness of human resource. The QP management practices for employees were not founded on capacity to provide employee feedback that could have contributed into development of positive attitudes.

The study findings established QP didn’t conduct surveys on employee job motivation and satisfaction or measure the degree reward system could have contributed into employee motivation and job satisfaction. As a result, QP could not have identified attributes that were contributing into employee turnover or determine mechanism through which it could have managed employee turnover. The study findings established that The Qatar Petroleum employee motivation and job satisfaction wasn’t based on capacity for delivering non-monetary benefits. This implied, The Qatar Petroleum employee motivation didn’t deliver employee psychological contract. Provision of psychological contract has added benefit of improving employee motivation and job satisfaction. It increases employee job security and ensures employees have higher job retention. This proved hypothesis 3B to be true. Inability of Qatar Petroleum to deliver employee motivation and job satisfaction was based on incapacity of Qatar Petroleum to have efficient structures for managing employee motivation. Qatar Petroleum didn’t have structures for ensuring psychological contract enhanced value of employee psychological capital. This proved hypothesis 3B to be true.

The study results determined that the QP didn’t have framework for managing different categories of employees’ for instance millennial employees, Generation Xers and Baby Boomers. Millennial employees have different job motivation construct different from baby boomers job motivation expectations. Millennial employees seek flexibility of job and tasks and have increased need for feedback on tasks, and evaluation of performance. Thus, QP capacity to manage millennial employees was minimal and provided basis for acceptance of hypothesis 4C. QP should have utilized Hawthorne’s effect, Maslow’s model and McGregor’s theory X to Theory Y to develop framework for managing millennial employee job satisfaction and motivation. This could have contributed into capacity for millennial employees to identify QP commitment to human resource development. As a result of QP failure to respond to market changes with regard to entry of millennial employees into the job market proved static nature of traditional employee management strategies of QP. As a result, QP could not have managed sustainability of millennial employees’ job retention. This proved hypothesis 2A to be true. It further proved hypothesis 2B to be true with regard to failure of QP to develop strategies that could have resulted into capacity for job flexibility as job characteristic requirement of millennial employees. Use of monetary benefits could not contribute into millennial employee job satisfaction and motivation. This further proved hypothesis 3A to be true. Thus, QP needed to develop and implement non monetary benefits that could have contributed into millennial employee job satisfaction through provision for psychological contract, job flexibility, individual employee performance and productivity, training and development of employees hence utility of Hertzberg’s motivator hygiene factors in employee motivation. QP needed to provide hygiene factors for employee motivation although they might not contribute into employee motivation.

Motivated employees have higher performance index and productivity margins. Thus, QP employee performance was not equivalent to financial input. This could have contributed into exposure of QP into financial risks that could have affected continuity of the QP performance in the long term. This demonstrated possible negative impacts of employee lack of motivation and job satisfaction. Employee turnover results into loss of human capital that the organization could rely on for its future knowledge pool. Loss of competent employees results into loss of competitive advantage. This proved hypothesis 2C to be true. Failure to motivate employees could result into decreased productivity which contributes into build up of inventory and incapacity of organization to gain value from lean principles or lean manufacturing which results into unsatisfied customers and loss of key accounts that sustained profitability of QP. Due to loss of key account management, QP could have been exposed to problems of liquidity. This further proved hypothesis 2C to be true. There was therefore need for QP to align its leadership and management strategies towards creating environment for employee motivation and job satisfaction. The type of leadership that is implemented influences on employee capacity for job motivation and job satisfaction. The nature of leadership influences on level of power distance between employees and management, influences on construct of communication channels and capacity for internal organizational vertical, horizontal and downstream integration as well as level of uncertainty. This proved hypothesis 3C to be true with regard to mechanism organizational culture influences on employee motivation and job satisfaction. The study findings established the current employee motivation and job satisfaction could not have contributed into QP employee ownership, employee commitment to tasks or job retention.

Recommendations for employee motivation and job satisfaction

QP should improve on her communication strategies. Communication facilitates establishment of health employee relations and fosters capability for organization vertical (upstream), horizontal and downstream integration whose success depends on level of employee motivation and satisfaction. The QP should ensure employees have relevant support information like targets and milestones on tasks. Qualitative information should be communicated to employees and task specific roles determined. The QP should ensure recruitment practices are communicated to employees and develop and implement employee referral programs. QP should develop structures for employee reward systems such that the procedures for rewards are based on merit and recognize specific actions that employees can identify and recognize. Rewards should be based on positive attributes that the organization wants to nurture as part of employee expectations. Rewards should be used as building blocks for behaviors that can support organizational development.

QP should involve employees in development of framework for employee motivation and reward programs. The structure for employee recognition should be communicated to employees for implementation. This ensures employees can identify with organizational goals and work towards achieving organizational goals. The QP should implement training need analysis that identify employee weaknesses and ensure training and development of employees is rewarded through internal promotion of trained employees. QP should ensure employees participate in goals and objective setting for the organization. There should be balance between employee inputs, organizational goals and work-life of the employees (figure 14).

QP should develop organizational policies on employee development that recognize employee work life balance. QP could demonstrate capacity for employee work life balance by creating environment for workplace job flexibility, ensuring employees are paid for leave or time off duty, demonstrating caring attitudes for employee dependants through setting up of family medical insurance paid for by the company or education of employee children, offering financial support to the employees and taking part in community development projects as part of corporate social responsibility.

References

Aaker, D. A. (2004) Brand Portfolio Strategy, New York: Free Press.

Agar, M. (1996) Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography, (2nd ed.), Academic Press.

Agar, M. (1996) Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography, (2nd Ed) Academic Press.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Avnet, Tamar and Michel T. Pham (2004), Should I Trust my Feelings or not? The Metacognition of Affect-as-Information, working paper, Columbia University, NY.

Ayse Kucuk Yilmaz (2008) The Corporate Sustainability Model for Airline Business, European Journal of Scientific Research, 22(3), pp. pp.304-317.

Baker, Lynda (2006) Observation: A Complex Research Method. Library Trends, 55(1), pp.171-189.

Bentley, R., J. A. Hughes, D. Randall, T. Rodden, P. Sawyer, D. Shapiro, and I. Sommerville, (1992) Ethnographically-Informed Systems Design for Air Traffic Control: Proceedings of the ACM 1992 conference for Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ed. J. Turner and R. Kraut. New York, NY: ACM Press, , pp. 123-129.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.

Berry, C., & Grieves, J. (2003), To change the way we do things is more important than the certificate on the wall: does investors in people represent an effective intervention strategy for organizational learning? Learning Organization, 10(5), 294-304.

Blyton, Paul and Turnbull, P., (2004). The Dynamics of Employee Relations, McMillan Press Limited.

Brewster, C, P. Sparrow & G. Vernon (2007), International Human Resource Management, CIPD, London.

Buckingham, I, (2007) Brand Engagement – How Employees Make or Break Brands, Macmillan.

Bushe, G. and Gibbs, B. (1990) Predicting organization development consulting competence from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and stage of ego development, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(3), pp.337-357.

Cakar, F., Bititci, U. S., & MacBryde, J. (2003), A business process approach to Human Resource management, Business Process Management Journal, 9(2), 190-207.

Chapman, C., and Ward, S., (2004), Why risk efficiency is a key aspect of best practice projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, pp. 619-632.

Chapman, Robert. (2007) Managing risk to enhance shareholder value, business continuity and risk management, IT adviser , p. 6-8.

Chun, D. M. and Plass J. L. (1996) Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System, Vol. 24, pp.503-519

Chun, D. M. and Plass J. L. (1997) Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments, Language Learning and Technology, Vol.1, pp.60-81.

Cnn.com (2009) 58: PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Cohen, Joel B. and Eduardo B. Andrade (2004), Affective Intuition and Task-Contingent Affect Regulation, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), pp.358-67.

Currid, E. (2007) the social life of creativity, Chapter 3 – the New York that never sleeps Scene, Princeton university press.

Daft, R. L., (2004), Organization Theory and Design, 8^th edition, Thompson South-Western, Mason, pp.178-182.

Edwards, P. (2003). Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice (2^nd Edition), Blackwell Publishing.

Edwards, T. and C. Rees, (2005), International Human Resource Management, FT Prentice Hall, London.

Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing Generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal. 70(4) (2005), pp.4-15.

Epstein, Molly and Howes, Polly, (2006) The millennial generation: Recruiting, Retaining and managing.

Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon, (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), pp.215-251.

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., and Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Fall (2003) A Synthesis of Ethnographic Research. Occasional Papers Series: Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research (Eds). Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Web.

Fenelle, C., (1996), Partnerships- Mirage or Reality? Risk Management, Vol. 43, No. 5, p.55.

Fetterman, (1998b). Ethnography, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fetterman, David M. (1998a) Ethnography: Step by Step, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol.17, Walnut Creek, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Finkelstein, S. (1992) Power in top management teams: dimensions, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), pp.505-538.

Fischer, K. (2003), Transforming HRM globally: the center of excellence approach, In Stopper, W. G. Current Practices, Human Resource Planning, 26(2), 5-11.

Fisher, D. and Torbert, W. (1991) Transforming managerial practice: beyond the Achiever stage, in Woodman, R. W. and Pasmore, W. A., Research in organization change and development, Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp.143-173.

Fisher, D. and Torbert, W. (1995) Personal and organizational transformation: The true challenge of continual quality improvement. London: McGraw-Hill.

Fisher, D., Merron, K., and Torbert, W. (1987) Human development and managerial effectiveness, Group and organization studies, 12(3), pp.257-286.

Gardner, S. and Eng, S. (2005) What Students Want: Millennial Generation and the Changing Function of the Academic Library. Libraries and the Academy: 5(3), pp.405-420.

Gibbons, M.L., Lomoges, H., et al, (2007) Research methods for business students, Harlow, England, FT: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education.

Greatplacetowork.ie (2010) 2010 Best Workplaces in Ireland. Web.

Grossman, R. J. (2007), New competencies for HR. HR Magazine, 52(6), 58-62.

Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009) Principles and Practices Related to Ethical Research, Chapter 11 in Survey Methodology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley.

Hackman & Oldham, 1976, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, v. 16, pp. 250-279.

Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide, London: Longman.

Harris, M. & Johnson, O. (2000). Cultural Anthropology, (5th ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Herzberg, F. 1968. One More Time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, p 53-62.

Hickson, D., Lee, C., Schneck, R., and Pennings, J. (1971) A strategic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, vol.16, pp.216-229.

Hofstede, G. (1980) culture’s consequences: international differences in work related values, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hom, James (1996) The Usability Methods Toolbox. Web.

Hughes, J. A., King, V., Rodden, T., and Andersen, H. (1994), Moving out from the control room: Ethnography in system design. Proceedings of the ACM 1994 Conference for Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 429-439.

Jacobs, R. J. (2004), Strategic HR: put yourself to the test. Strategic HR Review, 4(1), 3-13.

John M.T. Balmer, Helen Stuart, Stephen A. Greyser (2009) Aligning Identity and Strategy: Corporate Branding at British Airways in the Late 20th Century, 1999.

Kerlinger, F. (1979). Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kersley, Barbara et al. (2006). Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Routledge. London.

Kliatchko, J. G. (2005) Towards a new definition of integrated marketing communications (IMC). In International Journal of Advertising, 24(1), pp.7-34.

Koh S.C.L., Gunasekaran A., Rajkumar D., (2007) ERP II: The involvement, benefits and impediments of collaborative information sharing. International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Krueger, A. R. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical guide for Applied Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Labott, S.M. & Johnson, T.P. (2004) Psychological and social risks of behavioral research. IRB

Landis, J.R., and Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, pp. 159-174.

Larrabee, A. and Robinson, E. (n.d.) Ready or Not, Here They Come: Motivating and Retaining the Millennial Generation: Bell Oaks Executive Search. Web.

Levit, A. (2009) Millennial thought leaders online conference: Joining leading Gen-Y experts for in-depth and interactive professional development without leaving the office. Web.

Lewis, P. (1996), transformational change using stratified systems theory, international journal of public administration, 19(6), pp.801-826

Lippitt, G. and Schmidt, W. (1967) non-financial crises in organizational development, Harvard business review, 47(6), pp.102-112.

Liu, T. L. (2005). Impacts on improvement of organizational synthetic value caused by social network relationships, Journal of American Academy of Business, 6(1), 102-109.

Lockett, A. (2005). Edith Penrose’s legacy to the resource-based view, Management and Decision Economics, 26(2), 83-98.

Mansoor Hamood Al-Harthy (2007) motivation: a challenge for oil and gas companies an Omani case study, Oil and Gas Business, 2008 pp.1-14.

Marmot, M. (2004) Status syndrome – how our position on the social gradient affects longevity and health. London (UK): Bloomsbury.

Martín-Alcázar, F., Romero-Fernández, P. M., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2005). Strategic human resource management: integrating the universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 633-659.

Meisinger, S. (2007). Latest competency study defines new HR roles. HRMagazine, 52(6), 12.

Michael E. Porter. (2008) The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 2008, p.86.

Michael, C. (2000) Europe Japan Centre, Kaizen Strategies for Improving Team Performance, Ed. Michael Colenso, London: Pearson Education Limited.

Mosteller, F. and D.L. Wallace (1964). Inference and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesle.

Naoum, S., (2003), An overview into the concept of partnering, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.71-76.

Nicholson, N. 2003. How to Motivate Your Problem People. Harvard Business Review, p.57-65.

Oblinger, D. (2003) Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials: Understanding the New Students. EDUCAUSE Review. 38(4), pp.37-47.

Paul, P. (2001). Getting Inside Gen Y. American Demographics: 23(9), pp.42-49.

Pfeffer, J. (1998) The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Boston. Harvard Business Press.

Plikynas, D. (2008) Extended enterprise resource planning: conceptual approach using multiagent systems, Electrical And Computer Engineering Series, Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control, Modelling & Simulation, pp.380-387.

Porter, M.E. (1980) competitive strategy. New York, the free press.

Rainer and Turban, (2009), Information systems and the modern organization. In Introduction to information systems ( 2nd Edition, Ch 2, pp 38-39), Wiley.

Robert, L. (1988) on the mechanics of economic development, journal of monetary economics, Vol. 22, pp.1-42.

Schein, E.H. (1987) process consultation: lessons for managers and consultants (Vol II), Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Singer, E. & Levine, F.J. (2003). Research synthesis: Protection of human subjects of research: Recent developments and future prospects for the social sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 148-164.

Singer, E. (2003a). Exploring the meaning of consent: Participation in research and beliefs about risks and benefits. Journal of Official Statistics, 19, 273-285.

Singer, E. (2003b). The eleventh Morris Hansen Lecture: Public perceptions of confidentiality. Journal of Official Statistics, 19, 333-341.

Spengler, T. (2009). Success Factors of Fast-Growing Companies. London: Gabler Press.

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant Observation: New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Steeves, R. (1997) Why leaders are effective: and examination of leader developmental level and leader-follower developmental fit as predictors of effective leadership, Doctoral dissertation for The Fielding Institute, Santa Barabars, CA.

Tealdi, L, Bruni, T.2005. Motivation and Retention of Young Workforce in the E&P Industry. IPTC 10884 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar.

Torbert, W. (1987) Managing the Corporate Dream: Restructuring for Long-term Success. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Wilkinson, R., and Pickett, K.E. (2009) The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. London (UK): Penguin.

Yerema, Richard and Caballero, Rachel (2009) Chosen as one of Canada’s Top 100 Employers for 2010, Greater Toronto’s Top Employers for 2010 and Canada’s Top Employers for Young People for 2009. Web.