The success of each business relies on the employees' commitment to work, i.e., how and in which way employees perform their work. When consumers are offe- red the same or similar products produced by different companies and at different prices, and when the company's business result greatly depends on the quality of the work done, company management is more interested in securing its employees' full dedication to work. The generally accepted phrase "you get what you pay for" encouraged this research, whose purpose is to determine the strength of the relation- ship between materialistic and nonmaterialistic motivational factors to employees' commitment to work.
This research starts with the assumption that materialistic factors of motivation are more important motivational factors for employees when compared to nonmateriali- stic ones. Listed indicators of motivational factors represent independent variables, while the dependent variable represents the indicator 'work satisfaction', which de- termines the level of employees' commitment to work.
The research had 147 participants who work in companies from different industries and different sizes. According to the Likert scale, a structured questionnaire was used to measure the employees' attitudes. Various methods for data processing in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Smart PLS3 program were used: Descriptive statistics of the sample (SPSS); Exploratory factor analysis - PCA analysis of principal components (SPSS): Factor analysis - a test of validity and confidence of the instruments (SmartPLS3); Bootstrapping analysis - testing of the hypothesis (SmartPLS3). The conducted research shows that nonmaterialistic motivational factors, including Interpersonal relations and advancement, statistically significantly influence satisfa- ction at work, i.e., employees' commitment to the work.
Isaković S. *Menadžment malih i srednjih preduzeća*. 2015.
2.
Vujić V. *Menadžment ljudskog kapitala*. Rijeka: Sveučilište u Rijeci, Fakultet za turistički i hotelski menadžment Opatija. 2004;
3.
Vroom V. *Work and motivation*. 1994.
4.
Rethinking rewards. *Harvard Business Review. 1993;71*(6:37–43.
5.
Stajkovic A, Luthans F. Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. *Personnel Psychology. 2003;56*(1:155–94.
6.
Sikavica P, Bahtijarević-Šiber F, Pološki Vokić N. *Temelji menadžmenta*. 2008.
7.
Sikavica P, Bahtijarević-Šiber F. *Menadžment: Teorija menadžmenta i veliko empirijsko istraživanje u Hrvatskoj*. 2004.
8.
Seiler S, Lent B, Pinkowska M, Pinazza M. An integrated model of factors influencing project managers’ motivation — Findings from a Swiss survey. *International Journal of Project Management. 2012;30*(1:61.
9.
Schmiedel T, Brocke J, Recker J. Development and validation of an instrument to measure organizational cultures’ support of business process management. *Information & Management. 2014;51*(1:43–56.
10.
Ringle C, Wende S, Becker J. *SmartPLS 3*. 2015.
11.
Rahimić Z, Resić E, Kožo A. Determining the level of management competences in the process of employee motivation. *Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;41:535–43.
12.
Nohria N, Groysberg B, Lee L. Employee motivation: A powerful new model. *Harvard Business Review. 2008;86:78–84, 160.
13.
Levesque C, Copeland K, Pattie M, Deci E. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. 2010.
14.
Jenkins G, Mitra A, Gupta N, Shaw J. Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. *Journal of Applied Psychology. 1998;83*(5:777–87.
15.
Aguinis H, Joo H, Gottfredson R. What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. *Business Horizons. 2013;56*(2:241–9.
16.
Hair J, Sarstedt M, Ringle C, Hult G. *A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)*. 2017.
17.
Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. *Multivariate data analysis*. 2010.
18.
Freeman R. *Job satisfaction as an economic variable*. 1977.
19.
Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. *Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18*(1:39–50.
20.
Ebel R. *Measuring educational achievement*. 1965.
21.
Cronbach L, Shavelson R. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. *Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2004;64*(3:391–418.
22.
Bujas Z, Petz B. *Osnove psihofiziologije rada - Uvod u industrijsku psihologiju*. Zagreb: Institut za higijenu rada Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti. 1959;
23.
Buble M. *Menadžment*. 2009.
24.
Barclay D, Thompson R, Higgins C. The Partial Least Squares (PLS): Approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. *Technology Studies. 1995;2:285–309.
25.
Baker G, Jensen M, Murphy K. Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory *The Journal of Finance. 1988;43*(3.
26.
Bahtijarević-Šiber F. *Menadžment ljudskih potencijala*. 1999.
27.
Argyris C. *Knowledge for action*. 1993.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
