A study on employee morale in multinational

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) JMRD
ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1
January - April (2011), pp. 14-20 © PRJ PUBLICATION
© PRJ Publication, http://www.prjpublication.com/JMRD.asp

A STUDY ON EMPLOYEE MORALE IN MULTINATIONAL
ORGANIZATION

J. Neelakanta Gugesh1, Research Scholar – Sathyabama University, Chennai 119
Dr. S. SheelaRani2, Supervisor, – Sathyabama University, Chennai 119
gugesh@yahoo.com, sheelsun@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
The objective of this empirical paper is to improve the employee morale by doing
various 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 for
this research is 100 for this study. Percentage analyses, Ranking method, Chi-Square
Test were used for the analysis. The need for this study arises as the organization
should know their employees Satisfaction level and expectations which play a vital
role.
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 when
management undercuts their authority by referring to them as lowly, morale stifles.
Employees depend on managers for overall direction and guidance, yet one of the
complaints from former employees pertains to almost non-existent management
mentoring leading to conflict. Too often hubris plays a dangerous role in the boss to
subordinate relationship. Managers do not always realize that high- powered attitudes
come across negatively to employees. Managers should remember they are only as
good as their employees in many cases. Therefore, employees deserve management’s
time and consideration on a higher level than often viewed. Developmental feedback
by managers focuses on assisting employees develop themselves leading to more
capable and rewarding job performance.

1
Senior Manager -Projects, Cognizant Technologies
2
Asst Professor, Management Studies, New College, Chennai,

14

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 that
there must be some cause of this situation. It may be the policies or practices of the
company are defective or that if executives or at fault, or the views of those morale is
low do not agree with those of the company or of its executives. Since morale is
determined largely by workers participation and attitude, the management should
work upon the conditions that define these perceptions. For e.g. managers can
concentrate on supervisory styles, company policies, working conditions and other
factors external to and out of the control of the work to see that such factors are
employees oriented. Leadership styles that supports the worker & encourage him may
be applied.

Table showing the relationship between income and years of service in the
organization:
H0: There is no relationship between employee perception on income and years
of service in the organization.
H1: There is relationship between employee perception on income and years of
service in the organization.

Years of Income Adequate Moderate Highly Inadequate
service highly moderate
adequate
<1 year 10 1 1 1 2
1-5 years 15 2 2 1 6
5-10 years 5 1 5 9 1
10-20 years 4 1 3 12 2
>20 years 3 2 2 2 7
Total 37 7 13 25 17
Mean( ) 7.4 1.4 2.6 5 3.6

=

= =4

SUM 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- ) 2
Highly Adequate: = (10-7.4) + (15-7.4) + (5-7.4) + (4- 7.4 )2+ (3-7.4)2
2 2 2

= 101.2
Adequate: = (1-1.4)2 + (2-1.4)2 + (1-1.4)2+(1-1.4)2 +(2-1.4)2
= 4.4

15


Moderate: = (1-2.6)2+ (2-2.6)2+ (5-2.6)2+ (3-2.6)2+ (2-2.6)2
=11.6
Highly 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
squares
Source of variance
Between income and
years of service 110.4 4 27.6
Within 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 no
relationship 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


Table showing the rank of attributes related to work environment:

Attributes R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Achievement 19 10 20 12 14 25
Loyalty 10 9 3 37 31 16
Recognition 11 10 26 14 27 12
Responsibility 25 27 14 13 11 10
Economic 9 7 15 13 17 39
security
Self respect 11 37 8 10 12 22

Total of respondents =100
Table showing the weighted average of various attributes:

Attributes Weighted average Rank
Achievement 3.33 4
Loyalty 3 6
Recognition 3.28 5
Responsibility 3.99 1
Economic security 3.61 2
Self respect 3.59 3

WEIDHTED MEAN CALCULATION

For Achievement:
= 19×6+10×5+20×4+12×3+14×2+25×1
= 333
= 333/100
= 3.33
Inference
From the above table it is inferred that the respondents prefer rank 1 to
Responsibility, rank 2 to economic security, rank 3 to self respect, rank 4 to
achievement, rank 5 to recognition, and rank 6 to loyalty.

Table showing the association between attitude towards work environment and
satisfactory 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


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


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 H0

Findings:
From the above table it is found that most of the respondents consider salary as a
major factor in the organization.
Inference:
From the above table it is cleared that, there is no association between attitude toward
work 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


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 level
towards the facilities, rewards and recognition, working environment, appreciation
from their superior and the motivation from the top management. The organization
should 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
Employees

ARTICLES
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

A study on employee morale in multinational

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (14)

Semelhante a A study on employee morale in multinational

Semelhante a A study on employee morale in multinational (20)

Mais de IAEME Publication

Mais de IAEME Publication (20)

A study on employee morale in multinational