A study on employee morale in multinational
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

A study on employee morale in multinational

on

  • 636 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
636
Views on SlideShare
636
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    A study on employee morale in multinational A study on employee morale in multinational Document Transcript

    • Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) ISSN 2248 –Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD),ISSN 2248 – Volume 1, Number 1, January - April (2011)9390(Online), 937X (Print) JMRDISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1January - April (2011), pp. 14-20 © PRJ PUBLICATION© PRJ Publication, http://www.prjpublication.com/JMRD.asp A STUDY ON EMPLOYEE MORALE IN MULTINATIONAL ORGANIZATIONJ. Neelakanta Gugesh1, Research Scholar – Sathyabama University, Chennai 119 Dr. S. SheelaRani2, Supervisor, – Sathyabama University, Chennai 119 gugesh@yahoo.com, sheelsun@hotmail.comABSTRACT The objective of this empirical paper is to improve the employee morale by doingvarious activities such s grievance handling, reward and recognition, work safety, etc.This paper is an excerpt of my research work for doctoral degree. Sample selected forthis research is 100 for this study. Percentage analyses, Ranking method, Chi-SquareTest were used for the analysis. The need for this study arises as the organizationshould know their employees Satisfaction level and expectations which play a vitalrole. The reason for low morale should be found out for retaining their employees. In determining the organizational effectiveness.WARNING SIGNS OF LOW MORALE High rate of absenteeism. Tardiness. High labor turn over. Strikes and sabotage. Lack of pride in work. Wastage and spoilage.Managers need to be cognizant about how they refer to employees. For example,employees feel inferior when managers refer to them as subordinates, low level staff,or “my people” (Finders, Keepers 34). Employees appreciate empowerment but whenmanagement undercuts their authority by referring to them as lowly, morale stifles.Employees depend on managers for overall direction and guidance, yet one of thecomplaints from former employees pertains to almost non-existent managementmentoring leading to conflict. Too often hubris plays a dangerous role in the boss tosubordinate relationship. Managers do not always realize that high- powered attitudescome across negatively to employees. Managers should remember they are only asgood as their employees in many cases. Therefore, employees deserve management’stime and consideration on a higher level than often viewed. Developmental feedbackby managers focuses on assisting employees develop themselves leading to morecapable and rewarding job performance.1 Senior Manager -Projects, Cognizant Technologies2 Asst Professor, Management Studies, New College, Chennai, 14
    • Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) ISSN 2248 –9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - April (2011)IMPROVEMENT ON MORALE Whenever something is found to be wrong with the workers, it is obvious thatthere must be some cause of this situation. It may be the policies or practices of thecompany are defective or that if executives or at fault, or the views of those morale islow do not agree with those of the company or of its executives. Since morale isdetermined largely by workers participation and attitude, the management shouldwork upon the conditions that define these perceptions. For e.g. managers canconcentrate on supervisory styles, company policies, working conditions and otherfactors external to and out of the control of the work to see that such factors areemployees oriented. Leadership styles that supports the worker & encourage him maybe applied.Table showing the relationship between income and years of service in theorganization: H0: There is no relationship between employee perception on income and yearsof service in the organization. H1: There is relationship between employee perception on income and years ofservice in the organization.Years of Income Adequate Moderate Highly Inadequateservice highly moderate adequate<1 year 10 1 1 1 21-5 years 15 2 2 1 65-10 years 5 1 5 9 110-20 years 4 1 3 12 2>20 years 3 2 2 2 7Total 37 7 13 25 17Mean( ) 7.4 1.4 2.6 5 3.6 = = =4SUM OF SQUARES BETWEEN SAMPLES ∑n ( - ) 2 = 5(7.4-4)2+5(1.4-4)2+5(2.6-4)2+5(5.2-4)2+5(3.4- 4)2 = 57.8+33.8+9.8+7.2+1.8 = 110.4 Degrees of freedom (v) = (5-1) =4.SUM OF SQUARES WITHIN SAMPLE: Xi1- ) 2Highly Adequate: = (10-7.4) + (15-7.4) + (5-7.4) + (4- 7.4 )2+ (3-7.4)2 2 2 2 = 101.2Adequate: = (1-1.4)2 + (2-1.4)2 + (1-1.4)2+(1-1.4)2 +(2-1.4)2 = 4.4 15
    • Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) ISSN 2248 –9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - April (2011)Moderate: = (1-2.6)2+ (2-2.6)2+ (5-2.6)2+ (3-2.6)2+ (2-2.6)2 =11.6Highly moderate: = (1-5)2+ (1-5)2+ (9-5)2+ (12-5)2+ (3-5)2 =101.Inadequate: = (2-3.6)2+ (6-3.6)2+ (1-3.6)2+ (2-3.6)2+ (7-3.6)2 = 29.2.SUM OF SQUARES WITHIN SAMPLE: TOTAL=247.4 Degrees of freedom=N-C= (5*5-5) = 20.ANNOVA TABLE Sum of Degrees of freedom Mean Square F ratio squaresSource of varianceBetween income andyears of service 110.4 4 27.6Within income 247.4 20 F=27.6/14 14.09 .09 =1.96 F tab (4, 20) = 4.43 F cal =1.96. F cal <F tab Accept H0.Inference From the above table it is inferred that the respondents feel that is norelationship between income and years of service in the organization. Chart showing the emphasis of teamwork in the organisation: Findings: From the above table it is found that, 80% of respondents emphasized on teamwork and 20% of respondents didn’t emphasized on teamwork. Inference: From the above chart it is inferred that most of the respondents feel that teamwork is emphasized in the organisation 16
    • Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) ISSN 2248 –9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - April (2011)Table showing the rank of attributes related to work environment:Attributes R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6Achievement 19 10 20 12 14 25Loyalty 10 9 3 37 31 16Recognition 11 10 26 14 27 12Responsibility 25 27 14 13 11 10Economic 9 7 15 13 17 39securitySelf respect 11 37 8 10 12 22 Total of respondents =100Table showing the weighted average of various attributes:Attributes Weighted average RankAchievement 3.33 4Loyalty 3 6Recognition 3.28 5Responsibility 3.99 1Economic security 3.61 2Self respect 3.59 3WEIDHTED MEAN CALCULATION For Achievement: = 19×6+10×5+20×4+12×3+14×2+25×1 = 333 = 333/100 = 3.33Inference From the above table it is inferred that the respondents prefer rank 1 toResponsibility, rank 2 to economic security, rank 3 to self respect, rank 4 toachievement, rank 5 to recognition, and rank 6 to loyalty.Table showing the association between attitude towards work environment andsatisfactory level in the organisation H0: There is no association between attitude towards work environment and satisfactory level H1: There is association between attitude towards work environment and satisfactory level 17
    • Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) ISSN 2248 –9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - April (2011) Attitude Highly Satisfied Neither Highly Dissatisfied Total toward work satisfied satisfied dissatisfied environment nor dissatisfied Salary 10 5 7 1 0 23 Career growth 3 4 7 2 2 18 opportunity Grievance 1 5 5 1 1 13 handling Time 2 3 5 0 1 11 management R&R system 2 2 5 1 1 11 Safety 3 6 2 0 1 12 Training 2 5 4 0 1 12 &Development Expected Values: Attitude Highly Satisfied Neither Highly Dissatisfied toward work satisfied satisfied dissatisfied environment nor dissatisfied Salary 2.99 4.33 5.06 0.722 1.011 Career growth 4.14 6 7 1 1.44 opportunity Grievance 2.99 4.33 5.06 0.722 1.011 handling Time 2.53 3.67 4.278 0.611 0.856 management R&R system 2.53 3.67 4.278 0.611 0.856 Safety 5.76 4 4.667 0.556 0.933 Training 2.76 4 4.667 0.556 0.933 &Development 18
    • Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) ISSN 2248 –9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - April (2011)Calculation Part X2 = Calculated value for X2=28.0396. Degree of freedom = (R-1)(C-1)=(7-1)(5-1) =24 X2 tab at 24 d.f = 36.415 X2 cal > X2 tab Accept H0Findings:From the above table it is found that most of the respondents consider salary as amajor factor in the organization.Inference: From the above table it is cleared that, there is no association between attitude towardwork environment and satisfactory level in the organisation.FINDINGS Most of the respondents feel that their income is highly adequate. It is found that the respondents feel that achievement is considered as a major factor for their work environment. It is found that 67% of respondents are not aware of HR practises followed in the organisation. Most of the respondents prefer opportunity for growth as a major factor for career development. It is found that 65% of respondents to superior, 27% to external consultants,5% to peers and 3% to subordinates for an appraisal system. It is found that most of the respondents prefer salary as a major factor for satisfactory level in the organisation. It is clear that training is required for respondents according to the need. It is found that 57% of respondents didn’t accepted that HR practises are good enough to address all the grievance of employees. It is found that 80% of respondents agreed that teamwork is emphasized in the organisation.SUGGESTIONS Try to make an approachable environment to subordinates so that when come with a problem it can be solved. Define your expectation clearly so that ambiguity can be avoided. Understand the individual profile and delegate. Ensure completion of all activities of a process. Try to avoid ego problems. Always develop a professional way of working. Talk to superior if difficult to access. 19
    • Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) ISSN 2248 –9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - April (2011) Continuously improve your knowledge. Avoid negative inner critic voice. Apply whether learnt then only it gives value addition to your work. Otherwise it will be forgotten after few days. Understand the superior’s priority and act.CONCLUSION The paper provides the details about the employee’s satisfaction leveltowards the facilities, rewards and recognition, working environment, appreciationfrom their superior and the motivation from the top management. The organizationshould provide comfortable working condition so that employee gives productivity.REFERENCES 1. Stephen Taylor, The Employee Retention Handbook, 2008, Jaico Publishing House. 2. George F.Dreher, Thomas W.Dougherty, Human Resource Strategy 2005, Tata McGraw – Hili publishing company limited, New Delhi. 3. Rodger w. Griffeth / Peter W. Hom, Retaining Valued Employees, 2001, Sage publications. 4. Derek Torrington, Laura Hall & Stephen Taylor, Human Resource Management 2002, Pearson Education Limited, England. 5. Paul Turner, HR forecasting and Planning, 2005, Jaico Publishing house, Mumbai. 6. Michael Armstrong, A Handbook of Human Resource Management, 2006, Kogan Page, United Kingdom. 7. Barbara A. Glanz, Handle with CARE – Motivating and Retaining your EmployeesARTICLES 1. Managing talent in uncertain times, Management Today, March 2009. 2. Wiki at work, Management Today, December 2007. 3. Learn from successive generations, The Human Factor, September 2009, volume 1 issue 10. 4. Each one Teach one, Human Capital, Vol.13 No.7, December 2009. 5. Right training and right sizing for survival, HRD newsletter, Vol: 24, issue: 12, March 2009. 20