Relationship between Motivational Factors and Job Performance of Employees in Malaysian Service Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in service industry have heightened the need for motivating employees. The aim of this study was to have better understanding on factors of employee motivation and their association with job performance in Malaysian servicing organizations. The dependent variable in this study is job performance. The independent variables are motivational factors namely payment, job security, promotion, freedom, friendly environment and training. A correlation research design was used in this study. Survey method was used to collect data. The research instrument was a structured questionnaire. A convenience sampling technique was used to select the respondents for this study. A total of 130 employees of service organizations constituted the sample. The results showed that among the motivational factors, two variables were found to be significant predictors of job performance. Training contributed 40.4% to job performance while promotion contributed an additional 3%. An interesting finding of the research is that intrinsic motivational factors are considered more important compared to extrinsic motivational factors such as payment, job security, and friendly environment. Freedom an intrinsic variable however was not found to be significantly related to job performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".