Next Article in Journal
Research Synthesis on Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching for Multilingual Learners
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Relevance of Information Sources for Modelling Student Performance in a Higher Mathematics Education Course
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/educsci13060556
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Managing Employee Motivation in Slovak Universities from the Perspectives of Time and Age

by
Milos Hitka
1,
Lenka Lizbetinova
2,
Jana Javorcikova
3,
Silvia Lorincova
1,* and
Katarina Vanderkova
4
1
Department of Economics, Management and Business, Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology, Technical University in Zvolen, 960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia
2
Faculty of Corporate Strategy, The Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice, 370 01 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
3
Department of English and American Studies, Faculty of Arts, Matej Bel University, 974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
4
Department of Track and Field, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Comenius University in Bratislava, 811 08 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(6), 556; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060556
Submission received: 27 March 2023 / Revised: 12 May 2023 / Accepted: 24 May 2023 / Published: 28 May 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Human resources refer to a special and unique field as they are the most valuable but also the most costly factor of production. The aim of the research is to analyze the level of motivation of university teachers in Slovakia in terms of time and age, and to define the motivational needs of university teachers. The method of sociological questioning is used. The collected data from 2016 university teachers from Slovak technical universities are analyzed using the Tukey HSD test. Based on the research results, it can be stated that university teachers are the most motivated by relational and financial motivational factors. There is a significant change in the level of average importance of motivational factors across time (years), but there is no change in their structure. In terms of the age factor, significant differences over time are identified. Finally, Slovak teachers display the need for a more respected social status and a better image of their profession. The research findings will help university managers in raising the level of teachers’ motivation and in designing motivation programs.

1. Introduction

The 21st century is characterized by an immense pace of change, constantly increasing demands and expectations, which require a rapid pace of transformation and constant innovation in various fields. In this context, many businesses have come to understand that, along with “hard” economic indicators, “soft” ones need to be monitored and evaluated, as the quality of human resources is one of the most important pillars of business. Unfortunately, relatively little attention is paid to the issue of human resource management in public institutions and educational institutions in Slovakia, despite the fact that teachers ensure development in the whole of society. One of the main reasons why the field of human resource management in education remains in the background is, in particular, due to the frequent financial problems that the education sector in Slovakia has to deal with. Despite this fact, universities, just like other businesses, must strive to survive in today’s dynamically changing environment. In doing so, it is crucial to implement human resource management into the processes, as human resources represent the most critical production factor that significantly affects the overall success of an enterprise. From the strategic perspective, human resource management should be based on employee motivation, not only in the corporate sphere, but also in public institutions and universities [1,2,3]. Human resource management should be applied all the more in the field of education, because by improving the level of teachers’ motivation, better quality education for future generations and thus a development in the whole of society can be achieved [4,5,6].
In any organization, people are of the first and foremost importance. Human resources have a special nature and uniqueness [7,8]. They are the key factor [9,10], the most valuable factor [11,12], but also the most costly production factor [13]. They cannot be compared to other resources such as production equipment, money, energy, or information. Other resources cannot be used as efficiently as human resources and, at the same time, other resources cannot be managed without human resources. What is more, human resource management should mainly focus on employee motivation because, according to previous research [14,15,16,17,18,19], employee motivation has a major impact on work performance and thus on the performance of the whole company. Research by Riketta [20] indicates that employees who are more motivated tend to perform better, for example, do more work in less time, and at the same time, according to the research by Elias et al. [21], employees with higher motivation are able to perform higher quality, more efficient, more inventive, more responsible work than individuals with low motivation. Employee performance and subsequent organizational success or failure are often dependent on how much effort employees expend in completing their job tasks [15,22,23]. Undoubtedly, it is the human resources that contribute their performance to maximizing profits, achieving business success, and ensuring business competitiveness [24,25,26,27].
The term motivation is applied to virtually all circumstances, facts, or situations that people experience, feel, and perceive as important, and which can be answered by asking why/for what reason/on the basis of what stimuli and decisions are actions carried out. Definitions of motivation [14,28] often differ in the way that they are expressed or phrased but are usually similar in content. What is common to many of them is that they define motivation as a psychological process, influencing inner feelings that guide a person’s behavior, i.e., activate him or her to act with the intention of achieving a goal [29,30]. In the context of human motivation that directly affects the work environment, work motivation can be considered as a process that initiates and sustains goal-oriented performance, energizes thinking and enthusiasm, and colors emotional responses to work and life as positive or negative [30]. Motivation as one of the most essential antecedents of success has received quite a lot of attention [31,32,33]. There are a number of theories [34,35,36] according to A. H. Maslow, E. Schein, F. Herzberg, H. Heckhausen, F. W. Taylor, D. McGregor, etc., which investigate the process of motivation. They explain why people behave in a certain way at work and why they exert effort in a particular direction. They point out that no two individuals have the same attitude or behavior [37,38]. Individual employees may differ from each other in what is more valuable to them [39,40]. An individual’s level of motivation is determined by two forms of motivation, namely intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the result of satisfying an individual’s beliefs and values. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is based on tangible economic returns, goods, recognition, or services to the individual [41]. Intrinsically motivated employees often perform an activity because they find it right and rewarding. People experience pleasure, enjoyment, and self-motivation when performing a task and attribute their behavior to intrinsic factors that they control, such as emotions [42]. On the other hand, extrinsic rewards reflect a decrease in control over the situation [43]. The individual shifts his or her attention from the enjoyment of the activity to the reward for performing the activity [44,45]. Furthermore, Kantzell and Thompson [46] identified a total of seven intrinsic and extrinsic factors that can increase employee motivation. These seven factors include ensuring that workers’ motives and values are appropriate for the jobs in which they are placed; making jobs attractive to and consistent with workers’ motives and values; defining work goals that are clear, challenging, attractive, and attainable; providing workers with the personnel and the material resources that facilitate their effectiveness; creating supportive social environments; reinforcing performance; and harmonizing all of these elements into a consistent sociotechnical system. It can be argued that there are other factors that influence employee motivation. According to research by Sadhna et al. [47], rewards and benefits had the greatest impact on job performance. Research by Ariani [48] emphasizes environmental conditions. Vivek and Sweksha [49] consider appreciation, recognition, authority, responsibility, and status as the real motivating factors. Theories of employee motivation are often associated with goal setting, organizational justice, and the theory of social cognition. Work motivation is different for each individual and can be influenced by other motivational factors. A different individual motivational profile is a consequence of the uniqueness of each employee’s personality [50].
While previous research [14,51,52,53] mainly investigates employee motivation in the corporate sphere, due attention should be paid to employees in the public sector as well [54,55]. The aim is to investigate which factors influence the motivation of university teachers in the country. The position of a teacher in Slovakia is still perceived by many as less credible and given less importance, despite the fact that a teacher, with his/her own hands, shapes the character, individuality, personality, and future of his/her students, and thus contributes to a development in the whole of society. Like employees in businesses, teachers can be motivated to perform by a variety of factors. They too may differ from each other in what is more valuable to them. Their commitment may vary as a result of individual, intra-company, or environmental changes [56]. Teachers with a strong sense of motivation tend to expand their teaching with formal and professional development. On the other hand, teachers with low levels of school socioeconomic status tend to have lower quality preparation, which is associated with challenges and may be associated with low motivation and self-efficacy in teaching. This is supported by research by Yaghoubinejad et al. [57], whereby, according to which, an unmotivated teacher will extinguish his learners’ enthusiasm and energy for learning. The research of Mokretsova et al. [58] found that the democratic leadership style of the school principal is positively related to the autonomous motivation of teachers directly and indirectly through the psychological climate. The analysis of 1294 Danish high school teachers provided by Fjendbo [59] shows that female teachers, unlike male teachers, are less motivated the more pecuniary rewards they perceive. The research of Forson et al. [60] finds compensation package, job design, and environment and performance management systems as significant factors in determining teachers’ motivation in the municipality. In this regard, it is advisable that every college and university should be able to identify and evaluate the motivation of its teachers, should be able to find out what drives teachers, and should find ways in which teachers can be motivated, and then make sure that the appropriate motivational factors are used for each teacher. The above is supported by the research of Engidaw [61]. Vnouckova et al. [4] further adds that education quality assurance is a necessity for a competitive environment in university education.
The aim of the research is to analyze the level of motivation of university teachers in Slovakia in terms of time and age and, based on the results, to define the motivational needs of university teachers. The focus is on age, because each generation shares the same significant life events in critical stages of their development [62]. These influence the way that people in a given generation develop and differentiate themselves from the next generation [63]. This provides space for intragenerational and intergenerational contacts, interaction, and learning [64]. Millennials are a generation that witnessed a technological explosion; they experienced life without the Internet, mobile phones, and other technologies, but they gradually learned to work and live with it. On the other hand, generation Z was born into the era of social media and online platforms. Technological media are natural for this generation. Generation Z perceives things more realistically, accepts challenges and facts with ease, and values privacy. They are independent and adaptable. Each generation has its own values, needs, and expectations, which must be understood in order to ensure their harmonious and successful integration into the organization, which was confirmed by the research of Urbancova and Vrabcova [65].
The uniqueness of the research lies in filling the gap, as no similar research has been conducted in this area in Slovakia.

2. Materials and Methods

The research on motivation was conducted between 2015 and 2022. Senior lecturers, associate professors, and professors working in 5 Slovak state technical universities were asked to participate in the research. A total of 2016 respondents were involved in the research. The composition of the research sample (n = 2016) is presented in Table 1.
To find out the level of motivation, the method of sociological questioning was used, carried out via questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed electronically. The questionnaires were divided into two parts. The first part explored sociodemographic factors, with age categories divided into four groups: under 30 years (on average 24% of respondents), 31 to 40 years (26% of all respondents), 41 to 50 years (27%), and the category of over 51 years (23% of respondents). The second part of the questionnaire consisted of individual motivational factors, which were grouped into five groups for statistical analyses, namely motivational factors relating to mutual relationships, to career aspiration, to finance, to work conditions, and to social needs. A total of 30 motivational factors were investigated in the following composition: motivational factors relating to mutual relationships (atmosphere in the workplace, good work team, communication in the workplace, supervisor’s approach), to career aspiration (opportunity to apply one’s own ability, career advancement, competences, prestige, individual decision-making, self-actualization, personal growth, recognition), to finance (base salary, fringe benefits, fair appraisal system), to work conditions (physical effort at work, occupational safety, job security, workload and type of work, information about performance results, working hours, work environment, job performance, mental effort, stress), and to social needs (social benefits, mission of the university, name of the university, region’s development, relation to the environment, free time). Due to the attempt to influence the respondents as little as possible, the motivational factors were listed alphabetically. Respondents could assign each motivational factor one of five levels of importance according to a rating scale from 1 (the least important/satisfied) to 5 (the most important/satisfied).
The collected data were further analyzed in Statistics software using statistical characteristics—weighted arithmetic mean, 95% confidence interval, and absolute and relative abundance. One way ANOVA test was used to compare multiple groups and look for statistically significant differences. The eta-squared value was used, which determines the substantive significance of the differences, whereby η2 = 0.01 indicates a small effect; η2 = 0.06 indicates a medium effect; and η2 = 0.14 indicates a large effect.
The Tukey HSD test was used to test the experimental hypotheses to see whether there was a high chance that an observed numerical change in one value was related to an observed change in another value. The following hypotheses were formulated:
  • WH1—it is assumed that the motivation of university teachers in Slovakia will be constant over time.
  • WH2—it is assumed that the motivation of university teachers in Slovakia will be different in terms of age.

3. Results and Discussion

Using basic descriptive statistics, it is possible to present the evolution of the mean values of the importance of individual groups of motivational factors (Table 2, Figure 1). From the results of these values over time, it can be concluded that in the long term, relational (mean values at the level of 4.50 to 4.69) and financial factors (values from 4.31 to 4.59) are considered to be the most important. Conversely, social factors are perceived as being the least important. This trend was noticeable throughout the period under review. Statistically significant changes in the perception of the importance of groups of motivational factors over the years (Table 2) at the p < 0.001 level, while the material significance was below the medium-level values (η2 < 0.6), were confirmed via ANOVA test as well.
Figure 2 shows the evolution of the mean values of the groups of motivational factors over time for the different age categories. The results show that the largest fluctuations and changes were observed for the youngest age group over time, which may be related to the distinct difference between Generation Z and older and more experienced teachers. At the same time, there is a significant trend of increasing importance of relational background in this generation, especially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. For the under 50 age group, there is more of a decline in this group of factors, similar to the group of financial factors. A significant break across all of the age categories can be identified in 2018 and also for some in 2021. The year 2018 is significant in the increase in the importance of the social group of factors (ecological burden, vision of the university, and impact on regional development).
The results of Tukey’s HSD test for the evolution in the group of financial factors for each age category (Table 3) determined significant changes in perceived importance (at the 5% level of importance) only for the development for the group of teachers under 30 years of age, namely a significant decrease in the mean value of the importance of the factors in 2016 (p > 0.00 to p = 0.046) and 2021 (p > 0.00 to p > 0.009) compared to 2015 and 2017–2019. From 2021 onwards, the importance significantly increases compared to 2020 (p = 0.034). Table 3 shows that there were differences over time only in the age category up to 30 years.
Averaging factors across groups provides more basic information about overall perceived importance. On average, the most important factors for teachers (Table 4) were found to be workplace atmosphere (4.66), good work team (4.64), basic salary (4.56), and fair appraisal (4.55). For a closer look, the evolution of the importance of these important relational and financial factors was then analyzed (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Table 5 and Table 6 report a significant increase in the importance of atmosphere and a good work team during the pandemic persistence period (2021 and 2022 compared to 2020) for the youngest age group. For the oldest group, there is a significant increase in the importance of workplace atmosphere in 2022 compared to 2021 and 2015. The determined value of eta-squared (Table 9) indicates moderate to medium substantive significance of differences (0.049–0.052) for workplace atmosphere factor and low substantive significance for good work team (0.039). For the 31 to 40 age group, this factor increases significantly in importance in 2020 (at pandemic outbreak) compared to 2016 and 2017.
Table 7 presents the fact that, significantly (α = 5%), the highest importance attributed to basic salary for the age group of teachers under 40 years was in 2015; since then it has significantly decreased (in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022, p was max. 0.041, and for the older category in 2016, 2020, and 2022, p was max. 0.019). For the youngest group of teachers, this emphasis on base salary increases significantly in 2016 (compared to 2017) and for teachers aged 31 to 41 it does so in 2018 (compared to 2016). For teachers aged 41+, the importance of base salary does not change significantly over time. The determined eta-squared value (Table 9) shows medium substantive significance for the differences (0.068–0.081) for the factor of basic salary in the first two age categories.
The Tukey HSD test reveals in Table 8 changes in perceptions of fair evaluation across 2015–2022 for the group of teachers aged 41 to 50. This group is characterized by a period when children are beginning to become independent and there may be a tendency for a need for career advancement before the onset of older age. There is a significantly lowest level of importance of this factor in 2016 compared to 2015, 2019, and 2022. For the other age groups, no statistically significant difference was identified in the evolution of the importance of this factor over time at the 5% significance level.
Based on the results presented above, it is possible to verify the established research hypotheses. WH1 assumed that the motivation of university teachers in Slovakia would be constant over time. The research hypothesis WH1 is rejected by the results of the ANOVA test, as during the years 2015–2022, there were statistically significant changes in the perception of the importance of all groups of motivational factors over the years among teachers (Table 2) at the level of p < 0.001, while the material significance of these differences is below the mid-level values (η2 < 0.6). Therefore, it is necessary to perceive the change in teachers’ preferences over time. The Tukey HSD test results of the development in financial factors for individual age categories show significant differences in perceived importance (at the 5% importance level), especially for teachers under 30. There is a considerable decrease in the perceived importance of financial factors in 2016 (p > 0.00 to p = 0.046) and 2020 (p > 0.00 to p > 0.009) compared to the years 2015 and 2017–2019. From 2021, the importance increases significantly compared to 2020 (p = 0.034). The identified decrease indicates a more sensitive reaction to external stimuli among the youngest group of teachers when teachers’ salaries were increased in 2016, and the year 2021 represented increased tensions in terms of the development of the crisis and, thus, job insecurity for newly qualified teachers. This sensitivity is also manifested in the issue of creating a relational background at the workplace (Table 9, significant differences in financial and relational factors at the level of 5%), which is natural for their higher vulnerability due to lower practice and the need to gain experience. Regarding the sustainability of education, this group has a high potential for contribution to innovation and a development in children’s digital literacy.
The second research question assumed that the motivation of university teachers in Slovakia would differ in age. The results presented in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 refute the validity of the WH2 hypothesis at the 5% significance level. The results of a comparison of the preferences of motivational factors by age category over time are presented in Figure 5 and Table 9. It is obvious that the most noticeable reaction of the youngest and oldest age groups to the ongoing crisis in 2021–2022 is in the form of a decrease in the importance of the basic salary and, conversely, the need for a higher relational background. On the contrary, the middle age groups reacted more to the valorization of the salary in 2016. It is also clear that adjusting the basic salary amount on the perception of importance has a more short-term effect.
Employee motivation plays an important role in development in enterprises, for the reason that it increases the productivity and efficiency of employees [32,66,67]. Appropriately constructed solutions in the field of the employee motivation process can bring multiple benefits for the organization, which is also suitable for public institutions, including academic ones [59,68,69,70]. Motivation in higher education is addressed in the research of Tohidian and Abbaspour [71], Lei et al. [72], and Hassan et al. [73]. The presented research is unique because it examines the level of motivation of university teachers in the country in terms of time and age, and based on the results, it defines the motivational needs of university teachers.
Comparing previous studies [55,74,75] with the presented research, a difference emerging in the preference of importance of motivational factors is evident. The research of Czaplicka-Kozlowka and Stachowska [69] confirmed that motivation and commitment of employees are influenced by a variety of factors in areas such as attitude to work and organization, learning and development, relations with superiors, communication and cooperation, work organization, and also rewarding and motivating. According to research by Murangi and Bailey [76], co-worker support significantly and positively impacts employee engagement. In the presented research, factors such as intrinsic value, autonomy at work, and benefit to the university are not considered to be important by teachers. Foreign teachers [77,78] as well as Slovak teachers, consider the attitude of the supervisor as an important factor of motivation. The attitude of the supervisor determines the teacher’s performance, and the teacher is encouraged and understood by his/her supervisor, but also criticized. The attitude of the principal also influences a good work team, the general atmosphere in the workplace, and the working environment, which in turn affect the feeling of satisfaction. The aforementioned is supported by the research of Ashraf [78], Jankelova et al. [79], and Shafagatova et al. [80].
The fact that financial motivation is the most important motivational factor in the long run is confirmed by previous research [81,82,83,84,85,86]. The same results are presented by the research of Al-Madi [87], who concluded that financial and relational motivational factors are considered to be the most important motivational factors. Based on the research of Ozturk Akar [88], the most important and main motivational factors for teachers can be considered to be basic salary, social influences, social contribution, working with children or adolescents, effective job opportunities, flexible working hours, and time off during holidays and weekends. The research results of Rasheed et al. [89] showed that although compensation packages and financial incentives are important factors for employees in the competitive market environment of the higher education sector, some other factors such as job design and working environment, performance management system, and training and development are also significant.
The research findings presented here should be complemented by the observation that, in addition to monetary and relational factors, Slovak teachers also show a need for a more respected social status and a better image of their profession. This need is directly related to the intrinsic motivation for self-actualization, which is unlikely to be solved only by monetary incentives. It is also related to the fact that the teaching profession is primarily a mission. It is a mentally demanding and responsible job. At the same time, it is work that is not financially awarded in Slovakia. The average salary of a teacher with many years of experience is at the level of 50% of the average salary of other university-educated employees. In Slovakia, the average salary of a teacher with a university degree is around EUR 750. At the same time, as bureaucracy has increased, children have begun to be separated according to the family’s wealth. Arrogant behavior of individuals begins to appear in schools, and children lose motivation to learn. The state also fails to provide material and technical equipment, high-quality curricula, and a dignified environment for their work. It clearly follows that society does not value pedagogical education enough.
In the past, the teaching profession was highly respected, and teachers were perceived as mentors. Their role was not only to impart information, but also to educate and guide their students. Looking at today’s image of the teaching profession, it is evident that there is much less room for this form of self-perception. The original mission of their profession is thus seemingly disappearing, which can be considered to be one of the limits of research. The practical consequences of the application of the research are conditioned by an improvement in the social status of teachers in Slovakia, which is conditioned by a fundamental change in the approach of the government of the Slovak Republic to the issue of education. Another limitation of the research can be considered the acceptance and application of the research outcomes by university managers. This is conditioned by a change in the thinking of managers who will ensure the recruitment and retention of talented and capable teachers in the positions of university teachers. However, this requires a fundamental change in personnel policy and strategy.

4. Conclusions

The aim of the research was to analyze the level of motivation of university teachers in Slovakia in terms of time and age and, based on the results, to define the motivational needs of university teachers. The research on motivation was conducted using a research sample of senior lecturers, associate professors, and professors working in Slovak technical universities. It was assumed that the motivation of university teachers in Slovakia would be constant over time. A significant change in the level of average importance of motivational factors across time (years) was confirmed, but there was no change in their structure. Furthermore, it was assumed that the motivation of university teachers in Slovakia would be different in terms of age. In terms of the age factor, significant differences over time were confirmed. The resulting outcomes further confirm that Slovak university teachers considered relational and financial factors as being the most important motivational factors. There were changes in their preferences over time, but they were not statistically significant. This means that they have maintained their motivational requirements in the long term. Significant differences exist in age categories. A significant effect of age on motivation for the factor of basic salary was confirmed. Additionally, the factor of fair evaluation was significantly affected by age. Based on our results as well as previous research [1,81], it can be concluded that the values of different generations are different. Younger generations are team players, are technologically savvy, want to feel valued and recognized in the workplace, want to learn, and want to grow [82]. Older generations of employees are loyal to their employers and have strong social skills, but lack technical skills [40]. These different values of different age groups may account for the differences that were observed in the presented research.
The presented research on motivation in higher education, along with a focus on the motivational preferences of university teachers, provides us with results that, when applied by university managers, can help to advance effective teaching along with high teacher satisfaction. Our work has defined the most important motivational factors of Slovak university teachers between 2015 and 2022. These were financial and relational motivational factors, which often strongly motivated them to work in a team. Financial motivation is conditioned by the long-term financial undervaluation of the teaching profession in Slovakia. However, the research outcomes have shown that Slovak teachers are also motivated by other motivational factors.
From the point of view of the theoretical implications of the research, it can be stated that the development in the motivation of university teachers over time is stable. The mentioned aspect is a challenge for university managers, and on the basis of which the insufficient motivation of university teachers in Slovakia can be seen.
The further direction of the research will focus on teachers’ motivation in terms of job category and length of experience.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; methodology, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; software, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; validation, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; formal analysis, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; investigation, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; resources, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; data curation, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; writing—review and editing, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; visualization, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; supervision, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; project administration, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V.; funding acquisition, M.H., L.L., J.J., S.L. and K.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by VEGA grant number VEGA 1/0161/21, by APVV grant number APVV-20-0004, by KEGA grant number KEGA 012UCM 4/2022, grant number KEGA 008UMB-4/2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Carpio-Pacheco, D.A.; Urbano, B. Job preferences in the agrarian sector: A gender, generation and present and future employees’ analysis. Itea-Inf. Tec. Econ. Agrar. 2021, 117, 436–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sun, S.R. Public service motivation and proactive behavioral responses to change: A three-way interaction. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2021, 49, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Young, S.; Berlan, D. We are not all the same: What motivates individuals to be members of professional associations varies by sector. Volunt. Sect. Rev. 2021, 12, 413–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vnouckova, L.; Urbancova, H.; Smolova, H. Factors describing students’ perception on education quality standards. J. Effic. Responsib. Educ. Sci. 2017, 10, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kohnová, L.; Stacho, Z.; Salajová, N.; Stachová, K.; Papula, J. Application of agile management methods in companies operating in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2022, 36, 2142809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Raza, H.; Ali, A.; Rafiq, N.; Xing, L.; Asif, T.; Jing, C.J. Comparison of higher education in Pakistan and China: A sustainable development in student’s perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tuan, V.K. The role of human resources practices and the mediating effect of innovative capacity on the growth of Vietnamese enterprises. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 24, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  8. Smerek, L.; Vetrakova, M. Difference in human resources development in various types of companies. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 21, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nastase, M.; Bibu, N.; Munteanu, A.I.; Mircioi, I.; Florescu, M.S. The specific elements of strategic human resources management for competitive business development. Ind. Text. 2019, 70, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Urbancova, H.; Vrabcova, P. Age management as a human resources management strategy with a focus on the primary sector of the Czech Republic. Agric. Econ.-Zemed. Ekon. 2020, 66, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nobakht, S.; Shirdel, A.; Molavi-Taleghani, Y.; Doustmohammadi, M.M.; Sheikhbardsiri, H. Human resources for health: A narrative review of adequacy and distribution of clinical and nonclinical human resources in hospitals of Iran. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2018, 33, 560–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tamasevicius, V.; Diskiene, D.; Stankeviciene, A. Human resource management practice in Lithuania: Evidences and challenges. Montenegrin J. Econ. 2020, 16, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dreher, C.R.G.; Zaremski, M.; Leven, F.; Schneider, D.; Roitberg, A.; Stiefelhagen, R.; Heizmann, M.; Demi, B.; Asfour, T. Capturing and interpreting human actions for programming robots in the production. AT-AUTOMATISIERUNGSTECHNIK 2022, 70, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Moon, T.W.; Hur, W.M.; Hyun, S.S. How service employees’ work motivations lead to job performance: The role of service employees’ job creativity and customer orientation. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 38, 517–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dewi, T.; Respati, W.; Sanvenia, V. Exploring employee’s motivation and performance factors: Evidence in a 3 Star Hotel in Indonesia by Contrasting Maslow’s and Cetin’s Model. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2020, 28, 75–86. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ouakouak, M.L.; Zaitouni, M.G.; Arya, B. Ethical leadership, emotional leadership, and quitting intentions in public organizations: Does employee motivation play a role? Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2020, 41, 257–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ralevic, P.; Dobrodolac, M.; Svadlenka, L.; Sarac, D.; Duric, D. Efficiency and productivity analysis of universal service obligation: A case of 29 designated operators in the European countries. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2020, 26, 785–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stacho, Z.; Stachova, K.; Caganova, D. Participation of all employee categories in innovation processes in Slovak organisations. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2020, 25, 853–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Farkasova, E.; Badura, R. Understandings of design in circumstances of humanity. Acta Fac. Xylologiae Zvolen 2021, 63, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Riketta, M. The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: A metaanalysis of panel studies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Elias, S.M.; Smith, W.L.; Barney, C.E. Age as a moderator of attitudes towards technology in the workplace: Work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2012, 31, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Myskova, R.; Hajek, P. The effect of managerial sentiment on market-to-book ratio. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2016, 15, 498–513. [Google Scholar]
  23. Musa, H.; Rech, F.; Chen, Y.; Musova, Z. The deterioration of financial ratios during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does corporate governance matter? Folia Oeconomica Stetin. 2022, 22, 219–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kicová, E.; Poniščiaková, O. Concept of BSC system and its use in strategic management of business transport enterprise in SR. Perner’s Contacts 2020, 15, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lazarevic, D.; Dobrodolac, M.; Svadlenka, L.; Stanivukovic, B. A model for business performance improvement: A case of the postal company. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 564–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pancasila, I.; Haryono, S.; Sulistyo, B.A. Effects of work motivation and leadership toward work satisfaction and employee performance: Evidence from Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jankelova, N.; Joniakova, Z.; Romanova, A.; Remenova, K. Motivational factors and job satisfaction of employees in agriculture in the context of performance of agricultural companies in Slovakia. Agric. Econ. 2020, 66, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chiu, H.H. Employees’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in innovation implementation: The moderation role of managers’ persuasive and assertive strategies. J. Chang. Manag. 2018, 18, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. James, C. Organising in schools: It’s all about emotion. In Emotion Management and Feelings in Teaching and Educational Leadership: A cultural Perspective; Oplatka, I., Arar, K., Eds.; Emerald Publishing: Binglay, UK, 2019; pp. 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Giurge, L.M.; Woolley, K. Working during non-standard work time undermines intrinsic motivation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2022, 170, 104134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Monnot, M.J. The effect of incentives on intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: A multilevel study across nations and cultural clusters. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2018, 60, 675–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vo, T.T.D.; Tuliao, K.V.; Chen, C.W. Work motivation: The roles of individual needs and social conditions. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bogdanovic, M.; Durian, J.; Cingula, D. HRM choices for business strategy support: How to resolve the most important hrm strategic dilemmas? In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development—Human Resources Development, Varazdin, Croatia, 9–10 June 2016.
  34. Wahba, M.A.; Bridwell, L.G. Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1976, 15, 212–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, M.T.; Raschke, R.L. Understanding employee motivation and organizational performance: Arguments for a set-theoretic approach. J. Innov. Knowl. 2016, 1, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bushi, F. An overview of motivation theories: The impact of employee motivation on achieving organizational goals. Qual. Access Success 2021, 22, 8–12. [Google Scholar]
  37. Parker, S.L.; Dawson, N.; Van den Broeck, A.; Sonnentag, S.; Neal, A. Employee motivation profiles, energy levels, and approaches to sustaining energy: A two-wave latent-profile analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2021, 131, 103659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jankelova, N.; Joniakova, Z.; Misun, J. Innovative work behavior-A key factor in business performance? The role of team cognitive diversity and teamwork climate in this relationship. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Olexova, C.; Sudzina, F. Gender and personality traits’ (BFI-10) effect on trust. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference of Business Economics, Management and Marketing, Zajecí, Czech Republic, 25–26 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mura, L.; Zsigmond, T.; Machová, R. The effects of emotional intelligence and ethics of SME employees on knowledge sharing in Central-European countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2021, 12, 907–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kreps, G. Organizational Communication, 2nd ed.; Longman: White Plains, NY, USA, 1990; p. 155. [Google Scholar]
  42. Abuhamdeh, S.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. Attentional involvement and intrinsic motivation. Motiv. Emot. 2012, 36, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mikkelsen, M.F.; Jacobsen, C.B.; Andersen, L.B. Managing employee motivation: Exploring the connections between managers’ enforcement actions, employee perceptions, and employee intrinsic motivation. Int. Public Manag. J. 2017, 20, 183–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cinar, O. A motivation on the effectiveness of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Econ. Manag. 2011, 16, 690–695. [Google Scholar]
  45. Grofcikova, J.; Musa, H. The impact of the board process on board and corporate performance: The case of Slovakia. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2020, 18, 366–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kantzell, R.A.; Thompson, D.E. Work motivation: Theory and practice. Am. Psychol. 1990, 45, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sadhna, P.; Gupta, S.; Rastogi, S. Key motivators for driving work performance amid COVID-19 in developing nations. Int. J. Work Organ. Emot. 2020, 11, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ariani, D.W. Job stress, motivation, and job performance: Direct and indirect relationship. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 24, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vivek, B.; Sweksha, R. Impact of employees motivation on job satisfaction and organizational commitment at Balco. Glob. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Manag. 2018, 5, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sekova, M.; Vetrakova, M.; Durian, J. The proposal of intercultural competency model of managers in multinational companies globalization and its socio-economic consequences. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on Globalization and its Socio-Economic Consequences, Rajecke Teplice, Slovakia, 5–6 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lolowang, N.L.; Troena, E.A.; Djazuli, A.; Aisjah, S. The effect of leadership and organizational culture on employee performance that is educated by motivation (study on the implementation empowerment programs in Jayapura city). Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2019, 17, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chahar, B. Performance appraisal systems and their impact on employee performance: The moderating role of employee motivation. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 2020, 33, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, W.P.; Guo, S.S.; Liu, J.S.; He, Y.; Song, M.M.; Chen, L.R. Linking emotion regulation strategies to employee motivation: The mediating role of guanxi harmony in the Chinese context. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 837144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ciobanu, A.; Androniceanu, A.; Lazaroiu, G. An integrated psycho-sociological perspective on public employees’ motivation and performance. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bhuvaneswari, G.; Vijayarajakumar, P. Impact of factors of motivation on employee motivation in higher educational institutions in coimbatore, India. Smart-J. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2021, 17, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vetráková, M.; Smerek, L. Competitiveness of Slovak enterprises in Central and Eastern European region. E+M Ekon. A Manag. 2019, 22, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yaghoubinejad, H.; Zarrinabadi, N.; Nejadansari, D. Culture-specificity of teacher demotivation: Iranian junior high school teachers caught in the newly-introduced CLT trap! Teach. Teach. 2017, 23, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mokretsova, L.A.; Sychev, O.A.; Bespalov, A.M.; Vlasov, M.S.; Prudnikova, M.M. Teachers’ autonomous motivation and work engagement: The role of the principal’s democratic leadership style and psychological climate. Obraz. I Nauka-Educ. Sci. 2021, 23, 115–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fjendbo, T.H. Leading employees of different genders: The importance of gender for the leadership-motivation relationship. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2021, 41, 651–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Forson, J.A.; Ofosu-Dwamena, E.; Opoku, R.A.; Adjavon, S.E. Employee motivation and job performance: A study of basic school teachers in Ghana. Future Bus. J. 2021, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Engidaw, E.E. The effect of motivation on employee engagement in public sectors: In the case of North Wollo zone. J. Innov. Entrep. 2021, 10, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Curry, G.D. Supervising Across Generations. In Security Supervision and Management; Davies, S.J., Hertig, C.A., Gilbride, B.P., Eds.; Butterworth: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kupperschmidt, B.R. Multigenerational employees: Strategies for effective management. Health Care Manag. 2000, 19, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Meece, J.L.; Glienke, B.B.; Burg, S. Gender and motivation. J. Sch. Psychol. 2006, 44, 351–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Urbancova, H.; Vrabcova, P. Factors influencing the setting of educational processes in the context of age management and CSR. Econ. Sociol. 2020, 13, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tarí, J.J.; Pereira-Moliner, J.; Molina-Azorín, J.F.; López-Gamero, M.D. A taxonomy of quality standard adoption: Its relationship with quality management and performance in tourism organizations in Spain. J. Tour. Serv. 2020, 21, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Metzker, Z.; Zvarikova, K. The Perception of company employees by SMEs with CSR concept implementation. Int. J. Entrep. Knowl. 2021, 9, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stacho, Z.; Stachova, K.; Hudakova, M.; Stasiak-Betlejewska, R. Employee adaptation as key activity in human resource management upon implementing and maintaining desired organisational culture. Serb. J. Manag. 2017, 12, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Czaplicka-Kozlowka, I.Z.; Stachowska, S. Factors shaping engagement of employees on the example of university workers. Manag. Theory Stud. Rural Bus. Infrastruct. Dev. 2018, 40, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kucharcikova, A.; Miciak, M. The application of human capital efficiency management towards the increase of performance and competitiveness in an enterprise operating in the field of distribution logistics. Nase More 2018, 65, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tohidian, I.; Abbaspour, A. Employees’ decision-making power in universities: Employees’ right or taken for granted realities? Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1785107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lei, D.Y.; Cheng, J.H.; Chen, C.M.; Huang, K.P.; Chou, C.J. Discussion of teaching with multiple intelligences to corporate employees’ learning achievement and learning motivation. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 770473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hassan, S.; Ansari, N.; Rehman, A.; Moazzam, A. Understanding public service motivation, workplace spirituality and employee well-being in the public sector. Int. J. Ethics Syst. 2022, 38, 147–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Weske, U.; Schott, C. What motivates different groups of public employees working for dutch municipalities? Combining autonomous and controlled types of motivation. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2018, 38, 415–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. de Reuver, R.; Van de Voorde, K.; Kilroy, S. When do bundles of high performance work systems reduce employee absenteeism? The moderating role of workload. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 32, 2889–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Murangi, A.; Bailey, L. Employee engagement of special needs teachers in Windhoek, Namibia: The moderating role of job crafting. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2022, 48, a1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kim, E.J.; Park, S.; Kang, H.S. Support, training readiness and learning motivation in determining intention to transfer. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2019, 43, 306–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ashraf, M.A. The mediating role of work atmosphere in the relationship between supervisor cooperation, career growth and job satisfaction. J. Workplace Learn. 2019, 31, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jankelova, N.; Joniakova, Z.; Cajkova, A.; Romanova, A. Leadership competencies in communal policy. J. Political Sci. 2021, 24, 181–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Shafagatova, A.; Van Looy, A.; Shamasbi, S.M. Uncovering the combined impact of process characteristics and reward types on employees’ job satisfaction: A European quantitative study. Sage Open 2023, 13, 21582440231160125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mahmoud, A.B.; Fuxman, L.; Mohr, I.; Reisel, W.D.; Grigoriou, N. “We aren’t your reincarnation!” workplace motivation across X, Y and Z generations. Int. J. Manpow. 2021, 42, 193–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Munir, Z.A.; Shukor, S.A.M.; Sundram, V.P.K.; Dzulkipli, M.R.; Shaharudin, N. Engaging the echo boomer: Teamwork at workplace. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2017, 23, 10519–10523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rynes, S.L.; Gerhart, B.; Minette, K.A. The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2004, 43, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Casuneanu, C. The Romanian employee motivation system: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Math. Model. Methods Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 931–938. [Google Scholar]
  85. Pruneda, G. Determinantes y evolución de la motivación de los trabajadores en un contexto de crisis económica. El caso de España. Pap. Rev. Sociol. 2014, 99, 41–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sánchez-Sellero, M.C.; Sánchez-Sellero, P.; Cruz-González, M.M.; Sánchez-Sellero, F.J. Determinants of job satisfaction in the Spanish wood and paper industries: A comparative study across Spain. Drv. Ind. 2018, 69, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Al-Madi, F.N.; Assal, H.; Shrafat, F.; Zaglat, D. The impact of employee motivation on organizational commitment. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2017, 9, 134–145. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ozturk Akar, E. Motivations of Turkish pre-service teachers to choose teaching as a career. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2012, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rasheed, M.I.; Humayon, A.A.; Awan, U.; ud Din Ahmed, A. Factors affecting teachers’ motivation An HRM challenge for public sector higher educational institutions of Pakistan (HEIs). Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2016, 30, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 13 00556 g001 550
Figure 1. Evolution of the average values of the factor groups over time.
Figure 1. Evolution of the average values of the factor groups over time.
Education 13 00556 g001
Education 13 00556 g002 550
Figure 2. Evolution of mean values over time by age category.
Figure 2. Evolution of mean values over time by age category.
Education 13 00556 g002
Education 13 00556 g003 550
Figure 3. Development in relationship factors by age categories.
Figure 3. Development in relationship factors by age categories.
Education 13 00556 g003
Education 13 00556 g004 550
Figure 4. Evolution of financial factors by age category.
Figure 4. Evolution of financial factors by age category.
Education 13 00556 g004
Education 13 00556 g005 550
Figure 5. Evolution of the most important factors by age category.
Figure 5. Evolution of the most important factors by age category.
Education 13 00556 g005
Table
Table 1. Composition of the research sample.
Table 1. Composition of the research sample.
AgeTotal
Up to 30
Years Old		31–40
Years Old		41–50
Years Old		51 Years Old
and Over
Year2015Count66966169292
% within Year22.6%32.9%20.9%23.6%100.0%
2016Count58867533252
% within Year23.0%34.1%29.8%13.1%100.0%
2017Count40798866273
% within Year14.7%28.9%32.2%24.2%100.0%
2018Count51436693253
% within Year20.2%17.0%26.1%36.8%100.0%
2019Count32568378249
% within Year12.9%22.5%33.3%31.3%100.0%
2020Count89585551253
% within Year35.2%22.9%21.7%20.2%100.0%
2021Count81436752243
% within Year33.3%17.7%27.6%21.4%100.0%
2022Count67634922201
% within Year33.3%31.3%24.4%10.9%100.0%
TotalCount4845245444642016
% within Year24.0%26.0%27.0%23.0%100.0%
Table
Table 2. Evolution of the mean values of the groups of motivational factors over time.
Table 2. Evolution of the mean values of the groups of motivational factors over time.
YearFinancial
Factors		Social
Factors		Relational FactorsWork
Factors		Career
Factors
20154.58554.24264.68854.44274.2863
20164.30573.76574.50134.10123.9769
20174.49383.91674.53144.20494.1125
20184.43494.18004.51594.26194.2693
20194.46953.86084.56824.23944.0808
20204.40283.89164.62754.21754.0647
20214.43153.95464.60764.29824.1094
20224.34363.96694.65044.24444.1617
Total4.43923.97754.58614.25454.1349
p-value (ANOVA)<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Eta-squared0.0240.0390.0170.0360.030
Table
Table 3. Comparison of changes in trends between various age categories in relation to financial factors.
Table 3. Comparison of changes in trends between various age categories in relation to financial factors.
AgeYearYear
20152016201720182019202020212022
Up to 30 years old2015 0.000 *0.8880.8230.7400.000 *0.4250.026 *
20160.000 * 0.021 *0.009 *0.046 *1.0000.1270.673
20170.8880.021 * 1.0001.0000.003 *0.9950.562
20180.8230.009 *1.000 1.0000.000 *0.9920.431
20190.7400.046 *1.0001.000 0.009 *1.0000.752
20200.000 *1.0000.003 *0.000 *0.009 * 0.034 *0.449
20210.4250.1270.9950.9921.0000.034 * 0.949
20220.0260.6730.5620.4310.7520.4490.949
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Evolution of relational and financial factors over time.
Table 4. Evolution of relational and financial factors over time.
YearAtmosphere in the WorkplaceGood Work TeamCommunication
in the Workplace		Supervisor’s ApproachFringe
Benefits		Fair Appraisal SystemBasic SalarySocial Benefits
20154.714.734.704.614.634.634.724.37
20164.644.604.424.354.364.424.334.11
20174.624.544.424.554.494.544.664.28
20184.634.554.494.394.394.434.644.27
20194.674.634.364.604.474.594.584.24
20204.664.724.564.574.284.694.544.10
20214.624.684.494.654.504.554.544.13
20224.724.674.604.614.304.524.394.17
Total4.664.644.504.544.434.554.564.21
Table
Table 5. HSD Tukey’s test for atmosphere in the workplace.
Table 5. HSD Tukey’s test for atmosphere in the workplace.
AgeYearYear
20152016201720182019202020212022
Up to 30 years old2015 1.0000.7460.9990.8550.9970.025 *0.040 *
20161.000 0.9861.0000.9940.9590.3800.421
20170.7460.986 0.9971.0000.2990.8940.912
20180.9991.0000.997 0.9990.9520.6260.655
20190.8550.9941.0000.999 0.4730.9040.918
20200.9970.9590.2990.9520.473 0.001 *0.002 *
20210.025 *0.3800.8940.6260.9040.001 1.000
20220.040 *0.4210.9120.6550.9180.002 *1.000
41–50 years old2015 0.7800.5060.9751.0000.9990.1930.883
20160.780 1.0000.1450.8960.9680.9871.000
20170.5061.000 0.037 *0.6510.8380.9991.000
20180.9750.1450.037 * 0.7550.7580.005 *0.365
20191.0000.8960.6510.755 1.0000.2710.953
20200.9990.9680.8380.7581.000 0.4910.985
20210.1930.9870.9990.005 *0.2710.491 0.995
20220.8831.0001.0000.3650.9530.9850.995
51 years old and over2015 1.0000.9850.0810.6201.0000.0180.957
20161.000 0.9870.1520.7421.0000.0550.990
20170.9850.987 0.5780.9970.9940.3290.674
20180.0810.1520.578 0.8740.1961.0000.023 *
20190.6200.7420.9970.874 0.8130.6570.221
20201.0001.0000.9940.1960.813 0.0770.986
20210.0180.0550.3291.0000.6570.077 0.006 *
20220.9570.9900.6740.023 *0.2210.9860.006 *
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 6. HSD Tukey’s test for good work team.
Table 6. HSD Tukey’s test for good work team.
AgeYearYear
20152016201720182019202020212022
Up to 30 years old2015 1.0000.9130.9690.9930.5250.3370.926
20161.000 0.9880.9961.0000.9350.3220.824
20170.9130.988 1.0000.9991.0000.2230.509
20180.9690.9961.000 1.0001.0000.4900.736
20190.9931.0000.9991.000 0.9980.2690.687
20200.5250.9351.0001.0000.998 0.000 *0.048 *
20210.3370.3220.2230.4900.2690.000 * 0.997
20220.9260.8240.5090.7360.6870.048 *0.997
31–40 years old2015 0.6490.4040.9971.0000.0570.9850.960
20160.649 1.0001.0000.5540.003 *1.0001.000
20170.4041.000 0.9940.3390.001 *0.9940.993
20180.9971.0000.994 0.9840.3681.0001.000
20191.0000.5540.3390.984 0.4910.9520.901
20200.0570.003 *0.001 *0.3680.491 0.1700.055
20210.9851.0000.9941.0000.9520.170 1.000
20220.9601.0000.9931.0000.9010.0551.000
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 7. HSD Tukey’s test for basic salary.
Table 7. HSD Tukey’s test for basic salary.
AgeYearYear
20152016201720182019202020212022
Up to 30 years old2015 0.001 *0.9940.0410.1570.015 *0.3320.000 *
20160.001 * 0.012 *0.4390.5440.6890.2211.000
20170.9940.012 * 0.4510.6250.2530.8850.009 *
20180.041 *0.4390.451 1.0001.0000.9990.500
20190.1570.5440.6251.000 1.0000.9990.626
20200.015 *0.6890.2531.0001.000 0.9740.776
20210.3320.2210.8850.9990.9990.974 0.243
20220.000 *1.0000.009 *0.5000.6260.7760.243
31–40 years old2015 0.000 *0.1021.0000.0770.0190.2580.007 *
20160.000 * 0.2360.000 *0.1230.6430.2080.497
20170.1020.236 0.1471.0000.9991.0000.999
20181.0000.000 *0.147 0.1250.032 *0.3090.016 *
20190.0770.1231.0000.125 0.9951.0000.996
20200.019 *0.6430.9990.032 *0.995 0.9961.000
20210.2580.2081.0000.3091.0000.996 0.997
20220.007 *0.4970.9990.016 *0.9961.0000.997
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 8. HSD Tukey’s test for fair appraisal system.
Table 8. HSD Tukey’s test for fair appraisal system.
AgeYearYear
20152016201720182019202020212022
41–50 years old2015 0.008 *0.4020.0770.9981.0000.2350.535
20160.008 0.5220.9210.023 *0.019 *0.8590.625
20170.4020.522 0.9910.7150.6191.0001.000
20180.0770.9210.991 0.1980.1641.0000.996
20190.9980.0230.7150.198 1.0000.4720.811
20201.0000.0190.6190.1641.000 0.3930.724
20210.2350.8591.0001.0000.4720.393 1.000
20220.5350.6251.0000.9960.8110.7241.000
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 9. Resulting p-value of ANOVA test by years of development in each age category for the top four factors (2 + 2).
Table 9. Resulting p-value of ANOVA test by years of development in each age category for the top four factors (2 + 2).
AgeAtmosphere
in the Workplace		Good Work TeamBasic SalaryFair Appraisal System
p-ValueEta-Squaredp-ValueEta-Squaredp-ValueEta-Squaredp-ValueEta-Squared
Up to 30 years old0.0010.052 *0.0090.039 *0.0000.068 *0.1580.022
31–40 years old0.5790.0110.0110.0350.0000.081 *0.1160.022
41–50 years old0.0140.0320.1060.0220.0290.0290.0000.048 *
51 years old and over0.0020.049 *0.1720.0220.0020.047 *0.0270.034
* p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hitka, M.; Lizbetinova, L.; Javorcikova, J.; Lorincova, S.; Vanderkova, K. Managing Employee Motivation in Slovak Universities from the Perspectives of Time and Age. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060556

AMA Style

Hitka M, Lizbetinova L, Javorcikova J, Lorincova S, Vanderkova K. Managing Employee Motivation in Slovak Universities from the Perspectives of Time and Age. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(6):556. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060556

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hitka, Milos, Lenka Lizbetinova, Jana Javorcikova, Silvia Lorincova, and Katarina Vanderkova. 2023. "Managing Employee Motivation in Slovak Universities from the Perspectives of Time and Age" Education Sciences 13, no. 6: 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060556

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop