Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
14
4 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Although the initial objective of the research, which was to provide a tool of practical significance
for both researchers and HR managers, has been fulfilled, we must recognize some limitations of the
index presented here. First, the need for cooperation with employers when the investigation is carried out
by external sources and the gross annual income is not known. Second, the EMI does not consider net
annual income, which implies that the positive or negative impact of fiscal pressure exerted in the country
is not measured. This methodological difficulty is due to tax provisions, which differ by individual. If the
fiscal pressure is to be measured, the anonymity of the survey will be lost and, thus, questionnaire
answers would be, most likely, biased for fear of job loss and reprimands. Third, the EMI fluctuates
freely without bound. In other words, it cannot reach a peak. This is the most severe difficulty of the
index, given it increases asymptotically if so does income. Accordingly, when annual income attains a
considerable amount of money, the relevance of the EMI is certainly distorted. Finally, all variables of the
EMI vary over short periods of time and, therefore, annual monitoring is highly recommended for those
aiming to follow the evolution of a group over time. All in all, we expect to have satisfactorily answered
the criticism coming from Hambrick (2007), Rousseau (2007), DeNisi et al. (2014), and especially the
call for empirical tools made by Saari and Judge (2004).
In a world where globalization has highly altered the way of doing things, competition has increased
vastly and, as a consequence, most business practices need to be optimized. The struggle for one of the
most critical resources, human resources, can provide organizations with competitive advantages that
might lead to dominate the market. The importance of human capital was already seen in the past when
most firms established HR departments in the 1960s, and the role of HRM within the firm has been
growing ever since. Today’s agreement upon HR departments is clear: it bears a strategic function that
looks for the best performance and coordination of all resources. The last decades have led to an evident
conclusion that makes room for empirical tools such as the EMI: motivations are changing radically, and
it is necessary to consider them as one of the main instruments for stimulating the human resources to get
the best results. Although it is true that HR departments have its own tools to promote job satisfaction as
well as to attract and retain talent, it is less clear whether they have a tool such as the EMI. The strength
of the EMI is that it does not only provide a deep and insightful overview of the market, but also allows
comparisons with the competitors. The EMI has proven indeed to be very useful: i) to quantify any
worker’s EM level; ii) to analyze, through historical series, the evolution of a group in the period
;
iii) to compare the motivation of a group (e.g. university faculty member) between countries in period t;
iv) to identify the focus of dissatisfaction; and v) to decision-making procedures, e.g. by a better
managing of turnover costs.
In fact, the EMI allows economic agents to assess the impact of remuneration as well as the effect of
strategies regarding working-time and working-conditions. We hereby present a powerful tool for HRM
that is closely related to productivity levels and turnover costs. The EMI is ultimately designed to serve as
a tool for attracting and retaining talent. The inner workings of the EMI must be understood in the context
of a social responsible organization with a win-win tool at its disposal. By assuring job satisfaction not
only is the organization better off because its productivity tends to increase, but also the employees enjoy
greater harmony and happiness. This is because the greater the satisfaction, the higher the motivation
levels and the willingness of workers to produce.
The methodological limitations of our own research point the way for future research, where
opportunities are abundant, especially in the field of developing empirical tools of higher quality. Yet
there are still several questions that need to be answered in regard extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic
motivation: Is it possible to measure somehow intrinsic motivation? If so, could an index of total
motivation be constructed? How should such an index weight the relative importance of extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation?
REFERENCES
Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental and
Social Psychology (pp. 276-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Alderfer C.P. (1969). An Empirical Test of New Theory of Human Need. Organizational Behavior &
Human Performance, 4(1), 142–175.
Aziri, B. (2011). Job Satisfaction: A Literature Review. Management Research and Practice, 3(4), 77-86.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Berling, J., Hurrell, J., Braverman, M., Collins, R., Gelles, M., Scrivner, W., and Keita, J. (2003).
Terrorized Workers: Employee Well-being Following 9/11. Unpublished manuscript.