Worker motivation on selected construction sites in Bangkok, Thailand

(1)

Worker motivation on selected construction sites in Bangkok, Thailand

STEPHEN O. OGUNLANA & WEI PIEN CHANG

School of Civil Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, PO Box 4, Klong Luang 12120, Pathum Thani, Thailand

INTRODUCTION

Theories of human motivation have been broadly grouped under the two categories, i.e. classical and contemporary theories (Robbins 1993). Classical theories include Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, McGregor's Theories X±Theory Y and Herzberg's Motivation±

Hygiene Theory. Contemporary theories include Alderfer's ERG Theory, McClelland's Three Needs Theory, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Goal Setting Theory, Equity Theory and Expectancy Theory. A comprehensive review of these theories is available elsewhere in the literature (Vroomet al.1992; Robbins 1993) and is beyond the scope of this paper. Olomolaiye

& Price (1984) have suggested that, since all these theories were developed outside the construction industry, the utility of these models to construction needs to be demonstrated before the theories can be applied to the industry. Research into construction motivation has concentrated on using one or more of the theories as the basis for motivation studies. This is because of the absence of any theory developed specifically for the industry. The present research used Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's motivation±hygiene theory as the basis for a survey of needs, motivation and demoti- vation in the construction industry in Bangkok, Thai- land.

The economy of Thailand was performing poorly prior to 1984, and as such, there was a decline in con-

struction activities. This intensified the migration of skilled construction craftsmen to the Middle East and other Asian countries (principally Singapore, Taiwan and Japan) which were enjoying better economic conditions and paying better wages to construction workers.

The increase in outward migration compounded the shortage of skilled workers which already existed in the construction industry.

A boom in construction work began in 1985, further increasing the shortage of skilled workers. The construction industry turned more and more to the villages for its supply of workers (the usual source of employees).

Many of the new entrants to construction work do not consider construction permanent employment, and therefore, are not completely detached from farming.

Others are unable to hire people to work on their farms.

As such, it is not uncommon for workers to return to the villages for long periods for agricultural work. Bangkok construction workers invariably have to be housed by their employers in temporary housing on or near construction sites in accommodation that has been descri- bed as `tin shacks' (Ogunlanaet al. 1993). The skill level in the industry is low, workers wages often do not reach the minimum wage designated by law, and workers are not given proper working and living conditions. There is no apprentice scheme, but in the last 2 years, the Gov- ernment has started to make moves to establish training centres with assistance from more developed countries.

Some of the centres are already being built, but none is Abstract The groundbreaking works of Maslow and

Herzberg have been used by many researchers on construction worker motivation. These two classical theorists were used as the basis for a survey of needs, motivators and demotivators on high-rise building construction sites in Bangkok, Thailand. The needs and felt motivators of construction workers in Bangkok are low on the Maslow hierarchy. The agreement between workers and supervisors regarding needs is strong. However, the agreement

on motivators and demotivators is rather weak. This may lead to the use of inappropriate methods for motivating workers. A comparison of the results of the present survey with other studies showed that attempts to motivate workers should take cognizance of the cultural context in order to achieve good results.

Keywords motivation, construction workers, theory of motivation, worker performance, supervisors

(2)

functional yet. Also, the standard of safety on construction sites is known to be bad (Anonymous 1990;

Gould 1995).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Three research objectives were set for the study. These were:

1 Thailand is a developing economy. Therefore, it was thought that Thai workers would be low on the Maslow hierarchy, and as such, would choose physiological and safety needs and motivators. This needed to be tested through empirical research.

2 In Thailand, workers live on or near construction sites.

It was thought that supervisors would be able to predict workers needs, motivators and demotivators with a reasonable degree of accuracy. This should be tested Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory hinges on the two major principles of deficit and progression. The deficit principles suggests that an unsatisfied need becomes a focal motivator, while a satisfied need no longer influences an individual's behaviour. The progression principle states that higher order needs are not active motivators until lower order needs are fulfilled (Holt 1990). If the validity of the two principles is accepted, then needs, motivators and demotivators catered for by supervisors can only be effective if these coincide with the actual needs, motivators and demotivators of workers. In other words, if supervisors give workers what they do not need, it will not energize workers to produce more.

3 It was thought that there would be more similarities between motivators in Nigeria and Thailand than between either of these two countries and the UK. This was because Nigeria and Thailand are both developing countries, whereas the UK is a developed economy.

Olomolaiye & Ogunlana (1988) have argued that workers in the UK are able to satisfy their basic needs.

In Nigeria and Thailand, these basic needs are yet to be satisfied. We wanted to confirm this.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Oglesbyet al. (1989) defined motivation as the incite- ment of unconscious and subconscious forces in people which result in desirable behaviours. For the construction company, the desirable behaviour is that construction workers exert a high level of effort in their work. An alternative definition by Robbins (1993) is more suited to the theories used in the present study. He defined motivation as the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals, conditioned by the effort's ability to satisfy some individual need.

According to Maslow (1943), human beings have five types of needs which form a hierarchy: (1) physiological needs (e.g. hunger, thirst, shelter, sex and other bodily needs); (2) safety needs (e.g. security and protection from physical and emotional harm); (3) social needs (e.g. affection, belongingness, acceptance and friend- ship); (4) esteem (e.g. self-respect, autonomy, achievement, status, recognition and attention); and (5) self- actualization (e.g. growth, achieving one's potential and self-fulfilment). When a lower level need is significantly satisfied, higher order needs become apparent. Fur- thermore, Maslow (1943) separated the needs into lower order needs (i.e. physiological and safety needs) which are externally satisfied and higher order needs (i.e.

social, esteem and self-actualization needs) which are internally satisfied. He did not give any research findings to support his opinion on human needs.

Herzberget al. (1959) proposed that employees will exert a great deal of effort when they are satisfied with job conditions, or in other words, people give when they feel good. Therefore, they investigated the question, `What do people want from their jobs?' They asked people to describe situations in which they felt exceptionally good and bad about their jobs. The responses were tabulated and categorized. Herzberg et al. (1959) identified negative factors which, when present in a working situation, produced dissatisfaction in workers and prevented them from working at their normal level. They argued that, when these factors are present, job dissatisfaction is prevented, but workers are not motivated to do more than the normal level of work. As such, they labelled these conditions `hygiene' factors. These

`hygiene' factors include: salary, status, security, relationship with peers, supervision, and company policy.

According to Herzberget al. (1959), motivational factors (motivators) are achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth. These cause the worker to produce at a superior level to the norm.

It has been pointed out that, although Maslow's need hierarchy is widely recognized, he did not provide any empirical evidence for it (Robbins 1993). Herzberg's work has also been criticized because of methodological flaws in the survey used to derive the theory and because it equates satisfaction with productivity. When things go well, people tend to credit themselves, but when things fail, they blame their external environment. Also, since raters had to make interpretations, it is possible that they may have contaminated the findings by treating two similar responses in different ways (Robbins 1993).

However, the works of Maslow, Herzberg and other classical theorists have been widely used in the construction industry as the basis of motivation both for

(3)

conceptual studies (Nave 1968; Schrader 1972; Hazel- tine 1976) and for empirical studies (Wilson 1979;

Olomolaiye & Ogunlana 1988). Only Maloney & Mac- Fillen (1985, 1987) seem to have attempted to use Expectancy Theory as the basis of their studies.

Maloney & MacFillen (1985) examined operative satisfaction using a random sample of unionized construction workers in a major mid-western city in the USA. These authors employed a structured questionnaire listing some job-related factors. Workers were asked to assign a level of importance to each component and to indicate their satisfaction with each factor. Their results showed that the most important set of factors were those relating to the intrinsic nature of the work; for example, working as a craftsman and challenging work.

Their procedure is considered to be less attractive in the Thai context because there were no construction unions in Thailand at the time of the study. Also, a comparison of Thailand and the USA would be inappropriate because of the differences in the economic conditions in the two countries.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's Moti- vation Hygiene Theory are used in the present study for two principal reasons: (1) the use of these theories is popular in construction; and (2) these theories allow comparison with previous works in other countries, especially Nigeria where the economic conditions are similar to those in Thailand.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY Data collection

Data for the present study were collected from seven high-rise building construction sites in Bangkok.

Twenty-five projects sites were randomly selected and approached for data collection. The seven project sites were the only ones for which access to interview workers and supervisors was granted. While the sample size is small, it is considered that the sites surveyed give a fair representation of high-rise building construction work in Bangkok at the time of the survey. Apart from two highways and expressways, most construction work in Bangkok at the time of survey consisted of high-rise housing and office buildings, and some shopping facilities. In addition, the sites surveyed represented the

`average' construction site in Bangkok at the time of the survey in that most construction sites used labour subcontractors and housed the workers in or near the construction site.

To make the data collection process accurate, it was decided to make personal contacts with site managers

and workers. The site managers allowed the research team to choose workers at random for interviews.

Worker survey

A two-stage questionnaire was used as the survey instrument, as in an earlier study (Olomolaiye &

Ogunlana 1988). The procedure from the earlier work was reproduced in the present study. The first set contained a list of needs. Workers were asked to choose needs relating to their current status from a list. Multiple responses were allowed. These were then analysed to determine the percentage of workers identifying each probable need on each site. Olomolaiye & Ogunlana (1988) explained that a need is a relative term differing with a worker's perception of what is lacking in their performance and with the site on which the worker is employed. As used, it reports the priority given to items on a limited list compiled from the literature. It is recognized that the workers' responses may not necessarily be their true perception of the situation as workers' responses have been found to reflect their mood at the time of answering questions. This is one of the main shortcomings of attitudinal surveys.

The second set of questionnaires contained a list of motivators and demotivators. The questionnaires were designed on the basis of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's Motivation±Hygiene Theory, but needs and motivators were listed randomly in the questionnaires. The subjects were asked: `How would you rank the following factors as improving your satisfaction with your job, and increasing or decreasing (for demotivators) your productivity? They were asked to rank the factors as very important, important or somewhat important. Scores of 3, 2 and 1 were assigned to the ranks, respectively. Total scores for each motivator or demotivator were converted into relative indices to identify the relative importance attached to each factor by the operatives and to have a common base for comparison.

As stated by Olomolaiye & Ogunlana (1988), `needs',

`motivators' and `demotivators' are interconnected within and between the lists. Since these factors were drawn from previous reports, the components reflect the different approaches to definitions in the literature as highlighted above. While earnings are needs, these are widely believed to be non-satisfiers, and therefore, are not motivators. Herzberg classified earnings with

`hygiene' factors. Fringe benefits which are regarded as motivators are often related to earnings in the form of financial incentives. For clarification, the present authors accept the first list of `needs' in the general sense of the word: as need, motivators as satisfiers (i.e. satis-

(4)

fying needs) that can encourage production and demotivators as dissatisfiers that can lead to a conscious withdrawal of productive ability.

Workers were interviewed individually and each question explained clearly in the local language. Worker responses were entered manually into the questionnaires. After giving rankings, workers were asked to provide explanations for their rankings. Some of their explanations have been used in the present paper.

Supervisor survey

For site supervisors/managers, personal interviews were used with a questionnaire to guide the interviewing process. Supervisors were given the questionnaires and allowed to make the rankings with a researcher on hand to explain any question that was not be clear. The supervisors first had to make the rankings, and were then asked to explain the reasons for their rankings and to discuss any techniques which they had adopted to motivate workers on their sites.

An open-ended questionnaire was not used as the primary research instrument because the results would be difficult to compare with previous studies. It was also thought that some of the workers, many of whom were poorly educated, might not be able to explain what motivated them if guidance was not provided.

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Previous work has revealed that there are no significant differences across trades in answering the type of questionnaire used in the present study (Olomolaiye &

Ogunlana 1988). Therefore, the analysis was not done according to trades, but rather, all trades were grouped together as construction workers. Also, the data could

not be disaggregated into skilled and unskilled workers because all the respondents were construction craft workers and there is no system of skills testing in Thai- land.

General data

A total of 61 workers were interviewed on the seven construction sites. The mean age-group of the workers was 25±30 years. The average length of time the workers had been on their current construction sites was 3±

12 months, and average construction experience was 3 years. The distribution of interviewees according to trades was: carpentry, 13; steel fixing, 11; concreting, 15; finishing, 13; and others, 8. On average, workers were educated up to the final year of primary school.

Analysis of worker data and discussion The needs of workers

Every need considered important by each worker was given a value of 1. The total score for each need was then calculated and transformed into the percentage of total workers interviewed on each site. A mean for all the sites was then calculated for ranking of needs. The results are summarized in Table 1.

From Table 1, it can be seen that the highest ranked need was more pay with percentages varying from 89%

to 100% across sites and a mean rank of 97%. This shows that money is still the most important thing in the mind of workers in Thailand. Their basic need has yet to be fulfilled. At the time of survey, a construction worker's basic wage was 125 Baht (£3.00) per day or 3750 Baht (£100.0) per month. This amount is usually not enough to meet the needs of the average family in

Table 1 Needs as ranked by workers

Percentage score for all sites

Rank Needs A(n= 10) B(n= 10) C(n= 10) D(n= 9) E(n= 8) F(n= 7) G(n= 7) Mean

1 More pay 100 90 100 88.8 100 100 100 97

2 Better accommodation 70 60 100 80 70 60 70 73

3 Good welfare conditions 60 50 80 70 70 50 60 63

4 A challenging job 60 60 80 60 60 50 50 60

5 Good safety provision 90 80 50 40 50 30 30 53

6 Good relationship with mates 80 40 70 50 50 30 40 51

7 Participate in decision making 50 40 70 60 60 40 40 51

8 More recognition on the job 50 50 70 60 50 30 40 50

9 Adopting a new method 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 43

10 More labours 70 70 40 30 30 20 20 40

11 Reduction of change in instruction 40 70 40 40 30 20 20 37

12 Repetitive jobs 40 70 40 20 20 20 20 33

13 Good orientation and training 70 60 30 20 10 10 0 29

(5)

Bangkok where the average daily income is above 500 Baht. The majority of the extra income comes from overtime work. As such, workers sometime work till 2000 h every day to earn extra wages to supplement their income. Supervisors stated that if there is no overtime pay, workers may become agitated and even go on strike.

The data on pay did not show any significant difference across the sites surveyed. The mean daily wage for the workers was 125 Baht but the standard deviation (36 Baht) was rather high. Site-by-site analysis based on a daily wage is impracticable because of the different sys- tems used by companies to recover their spending on accommodation and to charge workers for services provided (e.g. water and electricity).

Better accommodation is the second highest ranked need (73%). This is still a physiological need on Maslow's hierarchy. Most construction workers in Bangkok come from outside the city (see Ogunlanaet al.

1993). Since the workers cannot afford even the cheapest form of rental accommodation in the city, construction companies provide accommodation for their workers. The accommodation may be in the form of a temporary corrugated iron hut or on a more permanent labour camp. Some companies charge workers on a daily basis for the accommodation. The labour camps are usually crowded, dirty, hot and humid. Very few facilities are provided for the workers. Bathrooms and toilets are sometimes in open areas with little cover.

Therefore, it seems natural for the workers to ask for better accommodation. A company has responded by setting up a permanent labour camp for their employees.

The average construction experience for the company's workers is 5 years (significantly higher than the average of 3 years) and the workers are beginning to reduce the time spent in their home villages for holidays. However, this company is the only company known to the present authors which employs labour directly. The majority of companies use labour subcontractors. The company is constrained by local regulations to lay-off workers at the end of every 3 months and re-hire them on the first day of the fourth month. As such, most other companies have not followed this example.

Good welfare is the next highly ranked need. After the basic needs have been addressed, the workers address a higher level of need. Entertainments, such as trips and dinners, are part and parcel of life in Thailand. This is recognized by nearly every production factory in the country. However, few construction companies have time to address these needs. Insurance, family care and rewards are also some of the things listed by workers as needs.

A challenging job received a score of 60. This implies that workers are willing to accept more difficult tasks.

The workers stated that the accomplishment of challenging jobs made them feel `high'. This contrasts with repetitive work which was given a low rating (twelfth) by the workers. According to the workers, they hate repetitive jobs as these contribute to boredom.

Good safety provision is also a major need of workers.

Construction accidents are a major problem which can terminate careers. `A person has only one life,' said a worker. Even though money is desperately needed for survival, workers must remain in good health to enjoy it.

Construction sites in Bangkok have poor safety records (Anonymous 1990; Gould 1995). In 1991, the fatality rate was estimated to be 95.1 deaths per 100 000 workers employed in the industry compared to 12.9 deaths in manufacturing or 19.1 deaths in the Malaysian construction industry. As such, the need for construction companies to improve safety is very urgent.

Good relationships are important when workers work as a team. Help can be received from good workmates, problems can be solved within gangs and the working environment is more pleasant when workers can chat while working. However, some workers claim they are able to do good jobs no matter who their workmates are.

The desire to participate in decision making is indi- cative of the worker's self-respect or actualization. Most of the workers have very little education and are quite happy to do whatever the supervisor instructs. However, the workers stated that they express their opinions freely and use their judgement if they perceive supervisor's instructions not to be the best course of action. When supervisors insist on a course of action, however, the workers are resigned to carrying out the instruction without further protestations.

Opinion is divided on the subject of recognition.

Some workers want supervisors to recognize their hard work which makes them feel `important'. However, others think recognition may mean that supervisors constantly keep eyes on them. These employees prefer to work quietly and require no recognition. The second group of workers, it seems, have not properly under- stood the explanation of recognition on the job.

The majority of the workers think that they are com- petent enough to work without additional training.

Training seems to be equated with lectures. The workers would rather learn `on the job' than be `lectured'.

Ranking of motivators by workers

Each worker ranked the motivators as very important, important or less important. Scores of 3, 2 and 1 were given to the rankings, respectively. The total score for each site was then summed and a relative index was

(6)

calculated by dividing the point total by three times the sample size. The results are shown in Table 2.

The highest rank was given to fringe benefits. The workers equated fringe benefits to financial rewards.

They expressed their willingness to work overtime, on complicated tasks and in piece-work if there was the guarantee of making more money.

Good relationships were ranked second. A happy work environment allows the workers to produce more while quarrels and disagreements with workmates are considered to be things to avoid. This is especially important as the workers live in the same place.

Next came safety provision and security, which are considered to be safety needs on Maslow's hierarchy. A safe site, the workers stated, removes worries and cares, while job security removes all worries about `tomorrow'.

A challenging job was ranked lowest. The workers accepted that, while it is a motivator, it is not very important because they were willing to work on any task for as long as their efforts were needed. It is difficult to establish why workers ranked challenging jobs high as a need, but ranked it low as a motivator. It may be that the

work assignments are not challenging enough to make the workers perceive the motivating effect, or the reason might be tied to recognition with workers not wanting to be `distinguished from the flock'.

Ranking of demotivators by workers

The scoring and ranking of demotivators were done in the same way as motivators. The results are shown in Table 3.

Bad treatment by supervisors was ranked highest.

This may be interpreted in the light of the Thai environment. A harsh word is normally discouraged and avoided in Thai society because it causes the recipient to

`lose face'. Thus, rather than scold a worker for bad behaviour, a smile might be better used instead. It has been stated that, in Thai society:

`. . . a smile may be a sign of kindness, forgiveness, or friendly inclinations; a smile may also be merely polite, a way to smooth interaction or a sign that one is willing to listen. A smile may indicate agreement, Table 2 Motivators as ranked by workers*

Score for all sites (n= 61)

Rank Motivators A(n= 10) B(n= 10) C(n= 10) D(n= 9) E(n= 8) F(n= 7) G(n= 7) Mean Total RI

1 Fringe benefits 25 28 27 26 23 20 21 24.43 171 0.93

2 Good relationship with workmates 27 27 26 21 20 18 15 22.00 154 0.84

3 Good safety provision 23 26 26 25 19 18 17 22.00 154 0.84

4 Job security 27 23 25 24 17 20 17 21.86 153 0.83

5 Reduction instruction changes 25 24 24 16 18 14 17 19.86 139 0.76

6 Good orientation programme 22 23 25 20 19 16 12 19.57 137 0.74

7 Participating in decision making 25 18 21 20 17 15 13 18.43 129 0.70

8 Recognition on the job 22 21 19 16 13 15 16 17.43 122 0.66

9 Challenging task 16 19 18 18 18 14 14 16.71 117 0.63

* Scores: (3) very important; (2) important; (1) less important; relative index (RI) = (point total)/(36sample size).

Table 3 Demotivators as ranked by workers*

Score for all sites

Rank Demotivators A(n= 10) B(n= 10) C(n= 10) D(n= 9) E(n= 8) F(n= 7) G(n= 7) Mean Total RI

1 Bad treatment by the supervisors 28 29 28 26 22 19 19 24.43 171 0.93

2 Unsafe conditions 26 28 25 24 19 16 18 22.29 156 0.85

3 Lack of recognition of effort 25 25 23 20 20 15 12 20.00 140 0.76

4 Incompetence of crew members 18 13 27 21 19 16 16 18.57 130 0.73

5 Redoing work 20 20 20 15 12 17 12 16.57 116 0.63

6 Lack of communication 16 25 17 16 15 13 13 16.43 115 0.62

7 Poor inspection and supervision 16 22 13 19 18 13 12 16.14 113 0.62

8 Productivity urged no one cares 16 22 19 14 12 14 14 15.86 111 0.60

9 Underutilization of skill 22 13 21 14 17 11 12 15.71 110 0.60

10 Lack of participation in decision

making 23 13 14 16 14 15 14 15.57 109 0.59

* Scores: (3) very important; (2) important; (1) less important; relative index (RI) = (point total/36sample size).

(7)

or self-confidence, but it may also be a means to gently express one's opposition or doubt. A person on the defensive may smile, and one may smile when sad, or hurt, or even insulted, and with so many nuances of smiling, the smile often hides more than it reveals.' (Mulder 1979, p. ix)

It is commonly believed in Thai industry that task- oriented supervisors are more effective than relationship-oriented ones. However, it should be stressed that workers have strong feelings regarding the choice of words used in addressing them. People in Thailand cherish individual freedom and make much of the fact that their country was never colonized by a foreign power. In the neighbouring countries of Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, individuals are not as free as in Thailand. Thais like to express themselves and to be treated kindly. If they are not, they may use smiles to hide their disapproval. As such, unless the supervisor is close to the worker, s/he is unlikely to know what is unacceptable to the worker from facial expressions alone.

It is not surprising that unsafe conditions was the next ranked demotivator. Most of the workers have either experienced accidents or have been witnesses of the effects of accidents in the lives of friends and relatives.

The third-ranked demotivator was lack of recognition for effort. The workers thought that it was difficult to work with supervisors who do not give commendations for hard work.

Job-related conditions such as incompetent crew members, redoing work and poor inspections were also considered to be important. These tend to make it difficult to achieve targets, which can be rather frus- trating.

Analysis of supervisor data and discussion

Supervisors on each site were asked to rank the needs, motivators and demotivators (same lists as for the workers) on a scale of 3 for very important, 2 for important and 1 for less important to workers. They were told to make the rankings for workers (from their experience on the present site), and not for their own needs, motivators and demotivators. The score for each need, motivator and demotivator was summed up, and a relative index calculated by dividing the point total by three times the sample size. The ranking of needs by supervisors was considered necessary, as opposed to scoring done by workers, because, whereas several workers were interviewed on each site (and a mean could be calculated), only one supervisor was interviewed on each site.

Ranking of needs by supervisors

The results for ranking of needs by supervisors are shown in Table 4. More pay was highly ranked by supervisors as an important need for workers (0.90).

The supervisors were quite conversant with the financial problems of workers and their need to supplement income from other sources. Therefore, the supervisors tried to give the workers overtime and sometimes bonuses to increase the workers' income.

The second-ranked factor was good welfare conditions. The supervisors thought that the workers needed to be made to feel well cared for through the provision of social security, insurance and entertainment.

Safety was ranked third with a relative index of 0.71.

Table 4Needs as ranked by supervisors*

Different project sites

Rank Needs A B C D E F G Mean Total RI

1 More pay 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2.71 19 0.90

2 Good welfare conditions 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2.29 16 0.76

4 More recognition on the job 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 2.00 14 0.62

5 Reduction of instruction changes 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 2.00 14 0.62

6 Good relationship with workmates 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 1.86 13 0.62

7 Better accommodation 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1.71 12 0.52

8 Participate in decision making 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1.71 12 0.52

9 A challenge job 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1.57 11 0.52

10 Adopting a new method 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1.57 11 0.52

11 Good orientation and training 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1.57 11 0.52

12 More labours 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1.43 10 0.48

13 Repetitive jobs 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1.29 9 0.43

(8)

The supervisors were aware that the sites were not very safe because accidents often happened.

More recognition on the job and reduction of changes of instructions were jointly ranked third. These needs were esteem related.

The supervisors ranked a good relationship with co- workers next in importance. They stated that they needed to put workers in the teams where they were most comfortable.

Better accommodation and participation in decision making both had a relative index of 0.57. Most of the supervisors thought that the accommodation provided for the workers was good enough `considering that it is a construction environment'. Supervisors either did not live on the sites or did not live in the same type of accommodation as the workers. As such, they were unable to empathize with the workers.

A challenging job had an index of 0.52. Supervisors thought it was the duty of every worker to do as they were told, and as such, workers did not have any right to demand challenging tasks.

Supervisors did not think that more workers were needed, but accepted that repetitive jobs were bad for workers. They were well aware that their workers did not like repetition.

Ranking of motivation by supervisors

The results of the supervisors ranking of motivators are shown in Table 5. Again the supervisors thought that the earning-related variable, the fringe benefit, was the best way to motivate workers.

Job security (0.86) and good safety provision (0.81) were the next most highly ranked motivators. The supervisors believed that workers could give their opti- mum when they did not have to worry about their security and when the work environment was considered very safe.

The supervisors thought that a reduction in changes of instructions would not motivate workers because their employees were quite satisfied with doing as they were told.

Ranking of demotivators by supervisors

Bad treatment by supervisors, with a relative index of 0.95 received the highest ranking of all demotivators by supervisors (see Table 6). The supervisors thought that they needed to maintain good relations with their workers. This made working easier and allowed faster completion of assignments. As such, the supervisors believed that they needed to show care by listening to workers and treating them well.

Urging higher productivity without care was ranked second (0.81) while lack of recognition of effort was ranked third (0.76). Both results imply that supervisors think workers need care from supervisors and com- mendation when they do well.

Redoing work was also ranked third (0.76), showing that supervisors perceived that repeating work is a major demotivating variable which should be avoided.

Underutilization of skills and incompetent crew members were ranked lowest. The fact that supervisors thought that workers should not complain about how their skills were being used is again reflected in these results. It was the opinion of supervisors that the decision on crew composition was their responsibility and that workers should be willing to work in whatever groups they were assigned to.

What supervisors do to motivate workers

After the questionnaires were completed, supervisors were asked to talk about the methods which they

Table 5 Motivators as ranked by supervisors*

Rank Motivators A B C D E F G Mean Total RI

1 Fringe benefits 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2.86 20 0.95

2 Jobs security 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2.57 18 0.86

4 Recognition on the job 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 2.29 16 0.76

5 Good relationship with other workers 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2.29 16 0.76

6 Participating in decision making 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2.14 15 0.73

7 Challenging task 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1.86 13 0.62

8 Good orientation programme 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1.71 12 0.52

9 Reduction in changing instructions 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.29 9 0.43

(9)

employed to motivate their workers. Each method was noted and an explanation for their reasoning was sought from the supervisors. The methods used are summarized under six major headings: `Money and wages',

`Working conditions', `Spiritual encouragement', `Per- sonal influences' and `Welfare and entertainment'. The summaries are shown in Table 7.

Money and wages

This approach was the most widely adopted method of motivation on Thai building construction sites. Tech- niques widely used included: giving overtime, promising pay increases based on performance, offering bonuses and paying wages on time.

Overtime work was used to compensate for low wages.

This helped the work to progress faster, while workers were happy to earn extra pay. Overtime also contributed to the feeling that supervisors were concerned about the low income being earned by workers.

Wage promises were effected in several ways, one of which required scoring by the foremen. Half-yearly and yearly pay increases were given by supervisors based on the score provided by foremen. Another method required the setting of standards based on performance (as graded by the foreman or engineer), capability (as observed by the foremen) and working duration. How- ever, supervisors accepted that working duration is not a good measure of contribution. Bonuses were given at the end of the year when the company earned enough profit to justify them.

Prompt payment of wages should be a right of the worker. However, since there is a high incidence of workers incurring debts because they are not paid on time, the supervisors thought that this motivated people to stay longer with their companies.

Counselling for loyalty

Points listed under counselling for loyalty included reminding workers of the reputation of the company and encouraging them to cherish their association with it, giving clear instructions, making quick decisions and showing that supervisors were worthy of their trust.

These were made to encourage loyalty to the company and faith in the supervisors.

Personal influences included good communication, showing care and helping workers in need. Supervisors were also encouraged to listen to ideas from workers, to inquire about living conditions and related problems, and to offer help when appropriate. Workers were sometimes encouraged to approach supervisors when in need of cash loans. As such, supervisors tried to encourage their workers to look on them not as con- trollers but as guardians.

Welfare and entertainment

Supervisors tried to provide good food and accommodation, and to reward hard work. If workers lived far away from sites, transportation was also provided.

Monthly gatherings were becoming common and these were considered to be sources of motivation for workers.

Cross-analysis of worker and supervisor responses Maloney & MacFillen (1987) showed that foremen have a strong impact on worker motivation, performance and satisfaction. Specifically, Hinze & Kuechenmeister (1981) observed that foremen who are familiar with their crews are more productive. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that, if supervisors rightly perceive the needs of workers and can correctly predict what will Table 6Demotivators as ranked by supervisors*

Rank Deotivators A B C D E F G Mean Total RI

1 Bad treatment by the supervisors 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2.86 20 0.95

2 Productivity urged no one cares 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 2.43 17 0.83

3 Lack of recognition of effort 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2.29 16 0.76

4 Redoing work 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2.29 16 0.76

5 Little accomplishment 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 2.14 15 0.73

6 Unsafe conditions 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 2.14 15 0.73

7 Lack of communication 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 2.00 14 0.62

8 Lack participate decision making 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2.00 14 0.62

9 Poor inspection and supervision 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 2.00 14 0.62

10 Underutilization of skill 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1.71 12 0.52

11 Incompetence of crew members 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1.43 10 0.48

(10)

motivate their workers, then the methods and techniques used will be appropriate, and are likely to yield higher returns in the form of higher output. As such, it was decided to compare the responses of workers with those of their supervisors.

Cross-analysis of needs

The results of a cross-analysis of needs are shown in Table 8. Workers and supervisors both ranked more pay as the highest need of workers, showing a common opinion on the subject. Welfare conditions were also ranked highly by both workers (third) and supervisors (second). It has been previously stated (Jayasut 1988;

Ogunlanaet al. 1993) that the provisions for the welfare of construction workers on Bangkok building sites are inadequate. The need to improve site safety provisions was also recognized by both groups (ranked fifth by workers and third by supervisors). Good relationships with workmates (jointly ranked sixth) and participation in decision making (ranked seventh by workers and eighth by supervisors) were given moderate recognition by workers and supervisors. There was an agreement that, although good relationships are needed, these are

not as urgent as the satisfaction of physiological and safety needs, which suggests that the workers are recognized to be somewhere between the physiological and safety needs on Maslow's hierarchy. Both groups agreed that more labour and repetitive work were not important needs for workers.

Differences existed between some rankings of needs by workers and supervisors. For example, accommodation was ranked second by workers, but only ranked seventh by supervisors. Supervisors live in different types of accommodation, usually rented accommodation outside the sites. The supervisors are well aware that workers are migrants from distant villages who cannot afford the cost of alternative accommodation elsewhere.

Some supervisors said that workers were grateful for having roofs over their heads and were satisfied with whatever provisions were made for them. Whereas supervisors also see accommodation on sites as temporary, it has been shown elsewhere (Ogunlana et al.

1993) that site accommodation is fast becoming permanent housing for workers. There is a need for communication on this issue to make supervisors better appreciate the condition of workers as poor facilities mean a lot to workers during and outside the work Table 7 Methods of motivation used by supervisors

Item Methods A B C D E F G Sum Percentage

I Money and wages

Giving overtime work. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100

Promise to raise wages 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 86

Giving bonus 1 1 1 3 43

Pay on time 1 1 14

II Entertainment

Hold monthly party 1 1 1 1 1 5 71

Arrange trips 1 1 2 29

III Working conditions

Provide good supervision 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 86

Be fair 1 1 1 1 4 57

Provide safe environment 1 1 1 3 43

Non-strict supervision 1 1 2 29

Give freedom to work 1 1 14

IV Spiritual encouragement

Sharing company's fame 1 1 2 29

V Social influences

Have good communication 1 1 1 3 43

Show care 1 1 3 43

Give aid and helps (financial and others) 1 1 1 2 29

VI Welfare

Provide good accommodation 1 1 1 1 4 57

Provide good food 1 1 1 1 4 57

Give rewards 1 1 1 3 43

Provide training 1 1 2 29

Provide transportation 1 1 14

(11)

hours. In the majority of the cases, site accommodation is made from corrugated iron sheets in a country where temperatures can be as high as 428C. Thus, workers' complaints about such accommodation may be justified.

Recognition on the job was another area of disagreement. Supervisors thought that they needed to recognize the effort of workers (ranked fourth), while workers were not too desirous of more recognition. The workers generally thought that more recognition would mean more attention from supervisors, and consequently, less freedom in a society where individual freedom is cherished. This made them uneasy. A challenging job was ranked fourth by workers, but ranked ninth by supervisors.

A comparison of the rankings of workers' needs using Spearman's ranked correlation yielded a coefficient of ss = 0.67. The hypothesis of no correlation was rejected at the P< 0.05 level of significance. This indicated a significant correlation between the two rankings. Thus, supervisors know their workers needs fairly well. As such, if needs are the bases for motivation, supervisors should be able to motivate their workers well.

Cross-analysis of motivators

The results of the cross-analysis of motivators are shown in Table 9.

Again, workers and supervisors both took money (fringe benefits) to be the most important motivator.

Safety in the work place was another area of joint agreement. There was also a fair agreement between workers (fourth) and supervisors (second) on the utility of job security as a motivator. It would seem likely that techniques which focus on money, safety and security will work on the sites.

A good relationship with workmates was very important to workers (ranked second), but only given moderate recognition by supervisors. A reduction in changes in instruction was important to workers, but this is not given due recognition by supervisors.

A comparison of the rankings by workers and supervisors yield a Spearman ranked correlation coefficient of ss = 0.55. The no correlation hypothesis was accepted at the P< 0.05 level. This indicated a poor understanding of worker motivators on the part of supervisors.

As such, efforts should be made to give supervisors a proper understanding of what techniques will be useful in motivating workers. This should yield higher productivity.

Cross-analysis of demotivators

In some respects, there was agreement between supervisors and workers regarding what demotivated workers (Table 10). Both groups agreed that workers hate being treated badly by supervisors, prefer to work in safe conditions, hate redoing work and want their efforts to be recognized. They also agreed that underutilization of skills was not a strong demotivator, and accorded moderate importance to lack of communication, poor inspection and supervision.

Table 8Cross-analysis of needs (workers and supervisors) Ranking Theoretical ranking (after Maslow) Workers Supervisors Physiological needs

More pay 1 1

Better accommodations 2 2

Safety needs

Good safety provision 5 3

Welfare condition 3 2

Belonging needs

Good relationship with workmates 6 6

Good orientation and training 13 11

Need for esteem

More recognition on job 8 4

Adopting new methods 9 10

Self-actualization

A challenging job 4 9

Participate in decision making 7 8

Others

Reduction of changes in instruction 11 5

More labour 10 12

Repetitive jobs 12 13

Table 9 Cross-analysis of motivators (workers and supervisors) Ranking Theoretical ranking (after Maslow) Workers Supervisors Physiological needs

Earning related (fringe benefits) 1 1 Safety needs

Safe working conditions 3 3

Job security 4 2

Belonging needs

Good relationship with mates 2 5

Good orientation programme 6 8

Good supervision (reduction of

instruction changes) 5 9

Need for esteem

Recognition on the job 8 4

Self-actualization

Challenging task 9 7

Participate in decision making 7 6

(12)

The major area of disagreement between workers and their supervisors was care (ranked eighth by workers but second by supervisors). Incompetent crew members were also important to workers (ranked fourth), but supervisors were not aware of the importance of this factor (ranked tenth).

The comparison of the two rankings yielded a ranked correlation coefficient ofss = 0.44. The no correlation hypothesis was accepted at the P< 0.05 level. Thus, supervisors were not very good at determining what demotivated workers.

The degeneration of coefficients from needs (0.67), through motivators (0.55) to demotivators (0.44) is worth noting. It implies that supervisors are most able to predict workers needs and are least able to predict what demotivates workers.

In the past, management has made the mistake of providing workers with the outcomes which management believes the workers want rather than determining what their employees actually want (Maloney & Mac- Fillen 1983). While there is evidence that Thai supervisors are familiar with the basic needs of Thai workers, there is also evidence suggesting that their perceptions regarding workers motivators and demotivators are not necessarily correct. As such, closer interaction between supervisors and workers is needed to create an atmo- sphere of open communication that will allow supervisors to improve perceptions of workers motivators and demotivators. This also suggests the need for training supervisors in motivational techniques.

Cross-country comparison of motivators

Two previous studies of motivation based on Maslow's hierarchy are available for cross-country comparison.

The previous studies were made by Wilson (1979) in the

UK and Olomolaiye & Ogunlana (1988) in Nigeria.

Wilson (1979) evaluated operatives' rankings of motivation influences in the UK with a questionnaire survey.

Olomolaiye & Ogunlana (1988) approached workers on seven construction sites with questionnaire surveys and interviews to identify and rank probable motivational influences. These two reports provided a means of direct comparison with the present study. It should be stated that the desire to compare the works was a primary motivation for making this Thai survey. The premise for testing was that: `There should be closer agreement on motivators between Nigerian workers and Thai workers than there will be between UK workers and workers from any of the two countries.'

The workers from Nigeria and Thailand ranked fringe benefits as the most important motivator (Table 11).

This is understandable since both countries are developing countries where construction workers earn low wages. Low income workers in both countries are not yet able to satisfy their basic needs. As such, earning-related motivation techniques are likely to appeal to them. The case in the UK is different. The most highly ranked needs are safety and welfare. Olomolaiye & Ogunlana (1988) stated that every construction worker in the UK is able to satisfy the basic needs. As such, earning-related incentives may not motivate them as much as in Thai- land and Nigeria. Whereas workers in the UK prefer taking rest after work, construction workers in Thailand and Nigeria would rather work overtime to supplement their income.

Job security is ranked highly both in Nigeria and Thailand (both ranked fourth), which also because of the economic conditions in both countries. It has been reported that Nigerian workers often stand all day long at recruitment centres without being able to find an employer. In Thailand, construction workers are migrants from villages (see Ogunlanaet al. 1993). They have been brought to sites by labour leaders and are housed on the sites. Their entire livelihood and those of their family members depends on continued employment by the sites. Thai workers may have ranked job security highly because of the difficulty in changing jobs rather than scarcity of employment. Since they have been recruited by specific employers from their villages, access to other sites is not freely available to them. It should be remembered that social security benefits are not available to unemployed workers in Nigeria and Thailand. The UK survey was conducted at a time when worker shortages were being reported. Also, unemployed workers can fall back on social security benefits for food and shelter. As such, security of employment will not be as important to UK workers as it is in the two developing economies.

Table 10Cross-analysis of demotivators (workers and supervisors)

Ranking Theoretical ranking (after Maslow) Workers Supervisors Bad treatment by the supervisors 1 1

Unsafe conditions 2 5

Lack of recognition of effort 3 3

Incompetence of crew members 4 10

Redoing work 5 4

Lack of communication 6 6

Poor inspection and supervision 7 8

Productivity urged but no one cares 8 2

Underutilization of skill 9 9

Lack of participation in decision making 10 7

(13)

However, the three studies showed similar low rankings for belonging, esteem and self-actualization needs.

Thus, higher order needs are not considered to be important by construction workers.

A comparison of the rankings given to motivators by Nigerian workers, and those given by Thai and UK workers yielded Spearman ranked correlation coefficients ofss = 0.38 andss = 0.1, respectively. When the UK is compared with Thailand, the correlational coefficient is ss = 0.56. The three ranked correlational coefficients are acceptable at theP< 0.05 level, implying that there are no significant correlations between the three rankings. However, the result would seem to suggest that Thai workers are closer to their UK coun- terparts than they are to Nigerian workers. This is a surprising result considering that Thailand and Nigeria are both developing economies while the UK is a developed country. However, a closer examination revealed that Nigerian workers ranked a challenging task very highly (third). Workers in Thailand and UK gave rather low ratings to challenging tasks (ranked ninth and eighth, respectively). If this variable is taken from the list, the result shows much closer agreement between Thai and Nigerian workers. Their coefficient improved from ss = 0.38 to ss = 0.62, while the coefficient between Thai and UK workers dropped from ss = 0.56 to ss = 0.49.

This generates a question. Why is a challenging task so important to Nigerian workers? The answer may be cultural. The need to `show off' is very strong in

Nigerian society while Thais are known to be reserved or shy. Olomolaiye & Ogunlana's (1988) study was carried out in south-western Nigeria, an area which has embraced Christianity in the twentieth century, but with strong links to animist roots. Masquerades challenge each other publicly to prove who is stronger and people settle scores publicly by fighting. In contrast, public displays of strength and emotions are frowned on in Thai society where Buddhism is very strong. In effect, this means that motivators are not to be interpreted as universal, but must be seen in the proper cultural or environmental context. It may be that what is considered high on the Maslow scale may be very important early in the working life of a Nigerian worker who considers undertaking challenging tasks as a means of need fulfilment.

CONCLUSION

A survey of worker needs, motivators and demotivators in high rise building construction work in Bangkok was conducted. The survey results were also compared with similar studies from Nigeria and the UK. The limited sample size means that the results should be treated with caution. Therefore, the conclusions provide us with indications of conditions in Thailand. The major conclusions which can be drawn from the limited study are now discussed.

The needs of Thai construction workers (mainly higher pay, better accommodation, good welfare and Ranking

Theoretical ranking (after Maslow) UK workers* Nigerian{ Thai workers{

Physiological needs

Earning related (fringe benefits) 3 1 1

Safety needs

Safety working condition 1 6 3

Welfare 2 ± ±

Job security 11 4 4

Belonging needs

Good relationship with workmates 4 4 2

Good orientation programme 4 8 6

Good supervision 8 9 5

Need for esteem

Recognition on job 7 5 8

Self-actualization

Challenging task 9 3 9

Participate in decision making 6 7 7

* Wilson (1979).

{Olomolaiye & Ogunlana (1988).

{Present study.

Table 11Cross-country comparison of motivators