Zhuhai Ming Cheung, Three Staff Motivation Condition Comparative Analysis

Staff motivation level reflects the satisfaction level of corporate staffs to the work and related reward. Adversely, this satisfaction determines the desire to work of staffs and, furthermore, influence the performance of staffs and corporation. This article is formulated on the basis of research and social practice of myself in many companies, of enough knowledge about them, with respect to the theoretical viewpoint of organizational behavior.The article introduces Zhuhai Minhsiang (ZHMH), Dikang Group (DKG) and Company L (CL) firstly. ZHMH Automobile Industrial Co., Ltd. is a foreign venture company, and a private company as well. DKG is a mainland venture private company. CL is a SOE. These three are all manufacturing companies, and their asset scale is between RMB200m to RMB300m. This offers us the same base for our comparison. After the introduction, to make the reader know something about the basic information and different way of main positions setting about the tree companies, I make a quick view on the companies' structure and main positions with the person on these positions. This quick view has made a preparation for the following analysis and conclusion of different management thoughts at the end of this article. From the 3rd part on, I begin to research the staff's motivation situation. Firstly, I make a detailed explanation on staff performance appraisal and compensation package. With the help of this explanation, readers could have a minute knowledge about the compensation contribution and its fulfilling, the core part of motivation in the three companies. Secondly, I expound the moral of the three, demonstrating their contemporary staff motivation level. Finally, I review the formation of staff motivation result of the three and pointed out that CL's good motivation did not result from its performance, but its offers of all kinds of benefits and treatments which were better than other companies'.The 4th part of this article begins a main part of this paper. In this part, I made a comparative analysis about the motivational deeds and their results. I introduced a motivation model supposed by John.A.Wagner and John.R.Hollenbeck of Michigan State University. On the following stages, I explain every factor in the model (Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy, Ability, Perception of the Role, Equity of Rewards). This model regards that both the valence and instrumentality determine the desire for work, and desire and expectancy work together to determine the effort a person wants to spend on the work. This effort accompanied by the ability and perception of role determines staff's performance. At last, staff's satisfaction level, i.e., its motivation level, is determined by the equity of rewards and staff's performance. The model also shows that there are three dynamic relationships: The satisfaction level will influence the future valence; the equity of rewards will influence future instrumentality; the virtual performance will change future expectancy. By the introduction of this model, I have offered a theoretical instrument for analysis. In the following part, I make a detailed analysis on the above six factors about these three companies and on the staff's desire to work, effort, performance and their satisfaction determined by the six factors. Through systematic analysis, I have discovered some problems in these companies. I collect these problems and give answers to them. In this way, I show some wrong deeds of the three companies on staff motivation methods.The 5th part of this article is a natural continuance of the above parts and sublimation of the analytical results of part 4. Firstly, I make a more detailed analysis and thoughts about difference and sameness of staff motivation in the three companies. Secondly, I make a declaration about their same treatments on satisfaction of staff's basic needs, difference between normal staff and higher level management, dissatisfaction of instrumentality, monotony of reinforcement measures, scarcity of role explanation and inequity of r...