Acta Silvae et Ligni 111 (2016), 1-11 1 Izvirni znanstveni članek / Original scientific paper COMPARISON OF MOTIVATION FACTORS IN TWO WOOD PROCESSING COMPANIES PRIMERJAVA MOTIVACIJSKIH DEJAVNIKOV V DVEH LESNO PREDELOVALNIH PODJETJIH Josip FALETAR1, Denis JELAČIĆ2, Leon OBLAK3 (1) Spacva, d.d., HR-32100 Vinkovci, Hrvatska; jfaletar@inet.hr (2) Šumarski fakultet, HR-10000 Zagreb, Hrvatska; djelacic@sumfak.hr (3) Biotehniška fakulteta, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija; leon.oblak@bf.uni-lj.si ABSTRACT This research analyzed the motivating and demotivating factors amongst employees in two wood processing companies. The research was conducted over the years 2014 and 2015 with a survey using a questionnaire containing six questions with available statements offered. The questions were closed-ended, and respondents used the four-level scale of importance for each statement. A total of 180 employees in each company were surveyed, and results were statistically processed by using the χ2- test and cluster analysis. This study established that the motivation factors most important to employees between re- searched companies are significantly different. Employees were most concerned about social needs. Also, employees consider psychological circumstances of work to be very important. Employees’ overall motivation can be linked to higher efficiency and higher quality production and business results, and such research should be conducted more often. Key words: wood industry, personnel management, employees, motivating factors, de-motivating factors IZVLEČEK V raziskavi smo analizirali motivacijske in demotivacijske dejavnike med zaposlenimi v dveh lesno predelovalnih podjetjih. Raziskava je potekala v letih 2014 in 2015. Opravljena je bila z metodo anketiranja, s pomočjo vprašalnika, ki je vseboval šest vprašanj s ponujenimi možnimi odgovori. Vprašanja so bila zaprtega tipa, anketiranci pa so pomembnost vsebine posameznih odgovorov ocenjevali s štiristopenjsko lestvico. Anketiranih je bilo 180 zaposlenih v vsakem podjetju, rezultati pa so bili statistično obdelani s pomočjo χ2-testa in klasterske analize. S študijo smo ugotovili, da se najbolj pomembni motivacijski de- javniki med zaposlenimi v obravnavanih podjetjih bistveno razlikujejo. Zaposleni so najbolj zaskrbljeni glede socialnih potreb. Menijo tudi, da je v podjetju zelo pomembna psihološka klima. Motivacija zaposlenih je lahko povezana z večjo učinkovitostjo, višjo kakovostjo proizvodnje in poslovnimi rezultati, zato bi bilo treba takšne raziskave pogosteje opravljati. Ključne besede: lesna industrija, upravljanje kadrov, zaposleni, motivaciji dejavniki, demotivacijski dejavniki GDK 791:966(045)=111 Prispelo / Received: 05. 02. 2016 DOI 10.20315/ASetL.111.1 Sprejeto / Accepted: 12. 12. 2016 1 INTRODUCTION 1 UVOD To achieve a quality production result, without the influence of technical-technological factors, one of the most important factors to consider is employees' mo- tivation for work. Motivated employees come to work with enthusiasm and wish to fulfil their daily obliga- tions in the most satisfying way, because it guaran- tees that their business results would be on the level required. Furthermore, satisfaction with their results and their salaries would be higher as well. Unmotivat- ed employees very seldom fulfil their obligations, so their production and business results are on a much lower level than required by the company or by the market (Jelačić et al. 2010). There are two groups of motivating theories: (1) motivation of contents, and (2) motivation of the proc- ess. The first group of theories researches the factors that motivate towards certain behaviour, whereas the second group of theories studies the reasons behind certain behaviour. Among the contents theories, the most recognized are the Maslow theory of needs, and the Glasser theory of choice. It is assumed that all hu- man behaviour is pointed towards satisfying one’s ba- sic needs (Lipičnik 1998; Glasser 1999; Glasser 1994; Kropivšek et al. 2011; Jelačić et al. 2008). Knowing the profile of a person’s needs can help form the basis for making the right approach for efficient and successful leadership (Kropivšek 2007; Jelačić et al. 2007). Herz- berg gives one of those main theories, which has two 2 Faletar J., Jelačić D., Oblak L.: Comparison of motivation factors in two wood processing companies main parts, the factors or motivators and the hygienic factors, which help maintain the standard level of sat- isfaction (Možina 1998). Among the different process theories there is the theory of a problem, which is based on a statement that people are willing to solve problems. A problem automatically initiates some kind of reaction from an employee (Lipičnik and Možina 1993). The Hackman- Oldhamer model of enrichment is based on three key psychological circumstances, the importance of work, responsibility and knowing results, which all have an influence on motivation at the workplace (Lipičnik and Možina 1993). Fromm (1996) gives a theory that says people work because they either want to have some- thing or because they want to live up to be somebody/ something one day. Some newer research within companies for wood processing and furniture manufacturing (Kropivšek 2003; Kropivšek and Rozman 2007) reveals the pres- ence of organizational cultures within a workplace, where the main goal is to motivate employees, which can pose an additional problem under certain given circumstances. It can be stated that almost all moti- vational factors lie in the hands of management. The main question remains: does management know how to use them (Možina 1998)? Motivation means that somebody does something because he or she wants to do so, and what management has to do is to moti- vate and stimulate him or her in such a way (Herzberg 2008; George and Jones 1999). Motivation is the proc- ess of awakening a person’s drive to pursue activi- ties, with emphasis on certain details and regulation to achieve a certain goal while overcoming obstacles along the way (Jelačić at al. 2010). It can be said that motivation contains factors such as enthusiasm, wish, intention, persistence, etc., which motivate and point ones behaviour in a certain direction (Daft et al. 2000). Previous research has shown that human activities are motivated by one or many known and sometimes unknown complicated factors (Možina 2002). There are individual factors that influence human activities and they are very often part of the human social life. Therefore, some routine motivating approaches may prove to be ineffective, because they are not adapted to each individual person within a company (Lipičnik 1998). The main goal of these activities aims to satisfy the wishes and expectations of one individual person, which are formed, based on his or her own material and social needs, desire for respect, independence, personal growth and development. The presented ideas have led to the empirical re- search in two wood processing companies. The aim was to establish what motivating factors are most im- portant to employees and their level of importance in two different companies. 2 METHODS 2 METODE The research method for collecting the data was a survey conducted by a questionnaire for employees consisting of 6 questions. The conditions of key pre- sumptions of different motivational theories were checked within the questionnaire. The questions were closed-ended, with respondents using a four-level scale of importance for each statement: the number 1 meaning never, 2 meaning sometimes, 3 meaning of- ten, and 4 meaning always. A total of 180 employees (n) were surveyed in each of two wood processing companies. The survey was conducted over the years 2014 and 2015. The differences in the frequency of answers given by employees between two companies were tested by the χ2-test for each individual question. The hypothesis H0 was that the distributions of answers to the same question given in both companies were equal. That test showed that there was a statistically significant diffe- rence between distribution of all answers given in two different companies (for all tested p-values, where p ≤ 0.001 meaning that the differences are “very highly significant” (99.9%), where p ∈ (0,001, 0,01) indicates that the differences are “highly significant” (99.0%), where p ∈ (0,01, 0,05) indicates that the differences are “significant” (95.0%), and where p > 0.05 indicates that the difference is “non-significant” (95.0%)). The study wished to establish which answers to given que- stions were closer to each other than others. Therefore a cluster analysis was conducted. The clustering method was used to find distances between the questions. For computing the distances between the questions, the percent disagreement measure distance equation, (x,y) = (number of xi ≠ yi)/i was used due to the categorical nature of the answers. For the clustering algorithm the hierarchical single linkage known as the nearest neighbour method was used. In this method the distance between two clusters is determined by the distance of the two closest objects within the different clusters d(CiUCj,Ck)=min. (d(Ci,Ck), d(Cj,Ck)). All statistical analysis and graphical presenta- tions were conducted using the STATISTICA 10.0 sta- tistical software. Acta Silvae et Ligni 111 (2016), 1-11 3 Table 1: �hich factors do managers give most attention whi- le managing? Preglednica 1: Katerim dejavnikom posvečajo menedžerji med upravljanjem največ pozornosti? GRADE / STOPNJA 1 2 3 4 N df χ2 p Factor / Company / Dejavnik / Podjetje A B A B A B A B Physiological needs / Fiziološke potrebe 20 37 51 57 82 41 27 45 180 3 48 <0.0001 Security needs / Potrebe po varnosti 7 23 35 58 77 57 61 42 180 3 63 <0.0001 Social needs / Socialne potrebe 21 53 45 64 85 36 29 27 180 3 85 <0.0001 Self-approving needs / Potrebe po samopotrditvi 19 43 41 71 82 44 38 22 180 3 77 <0.0001 Need for success / Potrebe po uspehu 19 53 35 65 86 33 40 29 180 3 122 <0.0001 Survival needs / Potrebe po preživetju 22 59 33 65 84 31 41 25 180 3 133 <0.0001 Need for love and belonging / Potreba po ljubezni in pripadnosti 27 92 41 47 88 20 24 21 180 3 210 <0.0001 Need for power / Potreba po moči 31 62 33 55 82 25 34 38 180 3 86 <0.0001 Need for freedom / Potreba po svobodi 30 64 38 57 86 27 26 32 180 3 90 <0.0001 Need to learn and to have fun / Potreba po učenju in zabavi 32 79 43 48 83 29 22 24 180 3 105 <0.0001 (1 – never / nikoli, 2 – sometimes / včasih, 3 – often / pogosto, 4 – always / vedno) Table 2: �hich of these factors are important in motivation? Preglednica 2: Kateri od teh dejavnikov so pomembni za mo- tivacijo? GRADE / STOPNJA 1 2 3 4 N df χ2 p Factor / Company / Dejavnik / Podjetje A B A B A B A B Interesting job / Zanimivo delo 10 22 11 26 66 68 96 64 180 3 46 <0.0001 Salary / Plača 3 17 4 10 39 28 133 125 180 3 78 <0.0001 Work success / Uspeh pri delu 6 13 5 22 52 62 118 83 180 3 78 <0.0001 Work independence / Neodvisnost pri delu 1 13 7 22 60 71 111 74 180 3 190 <0.0001 Work responsibility / Odgovornost pri delu 2 10 2 25 52 54 123 91 180 3 305 <0.0001 Possibility of promotion / Možnost promocije 8 20 11 22 55 44 108 94 180 3 33 <0.0001 Possibility of self development / Možnost oseb- nega razvoja 8 22 19 34 53 48 102 76 180 3 43 <0.0001 Possibility of profess. education / Možnost strokovnega izobraževanja 6 28 13 23 58 52 102 77 180 3 95 <0.0001 Company reputation / Ugled podjetja 3 23 9 27 58 64 109 66 180 3 187 <0.0001 Company politics and strategy / Politika in strategija podjetja 24 28 19 36 47 61 104 55 180 3 43 <0.0001 Outside auditing / Zunanja revizija 27 44 17 57 51 37 100 42 180 3 142 <0.0001 Way of management / Način upravljanja 10 29 10 32 54 55 109 64 180 3 103 <0.0001 Relationships with superiors / Odnosi z nadre- jenimi 9 15 8 35 59 66 107 64 180 3 113 <0.0001 Relationships with subordinates / Odnosi s podrejenimi 8 22 9 28 56 62 109 68 180 3 81 <0.0001 Employees inter-relationships / Odnosi med zaposlenimi 1 14 13 19 53 52 109 94 180 3 174 <0.0001 Satisfaction with personal life / Zadovoljstvo z osebnim življenjem 15 17 9 24 64 43 99 96 180 3 32 <0.0001 Work environment / Delovno okolje 6 22 8 23 56 44 111 91 180 3 77 <0.0001 Quality work schedule / Kakovost delovnega urnika 2 15 7 20 46 54 124 91 180 3 119 <0.0001 Status / Status 8 26 15 42 62 58 97 54 180 3 108 <0.0001 Safety / Varnost 1 18 5 15 43 44 129 102 180 3 315 <0.0001 Information on company status / Informacija o stanju družbe 25 29 16 28 59 65 95 58 180 3 25 <0.0001 Financial awards / Finančne nagrade 16 14 11 20 55 41 106 105 180 3 11 0.0107 Recognition / Priznanje 28 19 11 35 51 45 107 81 180 3 62 <0.0001 (1 – not important / ni pomembno, 2 – less important / manj pomembno, 3 – more important / bolj pomembno, 4 – very impor- tant / zelo pomembno) 4 Faletar J., Jelačić D., Oblak L.: Comparison of motivation factors in two wood processing companies Table 3: Can a problem increase your activity (motivate you)? Preglednica 3: Lahko problem poveča tvojo aktivnost (te motivira)? GRADE / STOPNJA 1 2 3 4 N df χ2 p Factor / Company / Dejavnik / Podjetje A B A B A B A B For solving problems special conditions are required / Za obravnavo problemov so potrebni posebni pogoji 12 21 43 78 88 57 37 24 180 3 51 <0.0001 Problems are an additional motivator / Problemi so dodaten motivator 24 36 50 68 77 52 29 24 180 3 21 <0.0001 Unmotivated employees do not see problems / Nemotivirani zaposleni ne vidijo problemov 28 35 28 55 82 61 42 29 180 3 37 <0.0001 (1 – never / nikoli, 2 – sometimes / včasih, 3 – often / pogosto, 4 – always / vedno) Table 4: �hy do people work? Preglednica 4: Zakaj ljudje delajo? GRADE / STOPNJA 1 2 3 4 N df χ2 p Factor / Company / Dejavnik / Podjetje A B A B A B A B To have something / Da bi nekaj imeli 2 8 4 10 43 39 131 123 180 3 28 <0.0001 Be something or somebody / Da bi bili nekaj oz. nekdo 36 24 44 45 55 45 45 66 180 3 16 0.0013 (1 – not important / ni pomembno, 2 – less important / manj pomembno, 3 – more important / bolj pomembno, 4 – very impor- tant / zelo pomembno) Table 5: How psychological circumstances influence work? Preglednica 5: Kako psihološke okoliščine vplivajo na delo? GRADE / STOPNJA 1 2 3 4 N df χ2 p Factor / Company / Dejavnik / Podjetje A B A B A B A B Sense of work importance / V smislu pomembno- sti dela 4 10 10 24 89 73 77 73 180 3 32 <0.0001 Sense of responsibility / V smislu odgovornosti 2 7 8 27 80 70 90 76 180 3 61 <0.0001 Sense of knowing the results / V smislu poznava- nja rezultatov 3 9 21 29 85 64 71 78 180 3 21 0.0001 (1 – not important / ni pomembno, 2 – less important / manj pomembno, 3 – more important / bolj pomembno, 4 – very impor- tant / zelo pomembno) Table 6: At what level do you notice demotivating factors in your company? Preglednica 6: Na katerem nivoju opažate demotivacijske dejavnike v vašem podjetju? GRADE / STOPNJA 1 2 3 4 N df χ2 p Factor / Company / Dejavnik / Podjetje A B A B A B A B Being discharged / Izpraznjenost 107 15 39 29 19 53 15 83 180 3 451 <0.0001 Salary decrease / Znižanje plače 112 14 28 45 22 52 18 69 180 3 281 <0.0001 Use of punishment in managing / Uporaba kazni pri upravljanju 118 18 35 30 16 57 11 75 180 3 563 <0.0001 Creation of tensions between employees / Ustvarjanje napetosti med zaposlenimi 99 17 38 32 23 52 20 79 180 3 279 <0.0001 Work hours shortening / Skrajševanje delovnega časa 140 100 26 28 6 32 8 20 180 3 142 <0.0001 Reprimanding employees / Opominjanje zaposlenih 117 16 36 48 14 60 13 56 180 3 385 <0.0001 No possibility of further education / Ni možnosti za kasnejše izobraževanje 110 28 45 67 18 46 7 39 180 3 262 <0.0001 Less freedom at work / Manj svobode pri delu 111 24 42 50 13 46 14 60 180 3 305 <0.0001 Less work to do / Manj dela 128 84 39 45 9 29 4 22 180 3 141 <0.0001 (1 – not existing / ne obstajajo, 2 – existing a little / obstajajo, vendar malo, 3 – existing / obstajajo, 4 – very existing / obstajajo v veliki meri) Acta Silvae et Ligni 111 (2016), 1-11 5 3 RESULTS 3 REZULTATI Tables 1 to 6 present the frequencies of answers to questions offered in the questionnaire from companies A and B. N stands for the size of the sample, df is the degree of freedom, while χ2 represents the Pearson’s chi-squared test and p-values. The results of the cluster analysis are given in Fig- ures 1 to 6, showing the tree diagrams for answers to each question for companies A and B. Figure 1 shows that there was a strong relationship between self-approving needs and the need for su- ccess in company A, while there is a strong connection between the need for freedom and the need to learn and to have fun in company B. Figure 2 shows that the strongest relationship in both companies was between needs for status and sa- fety, but the linkage distance is significantly different for each of the companies in the research. Also, in com- pany A the next two needs in strongest relationship with status and safety are salary and financial awards. In company B the in strongest relationship with status and safety is a need for quality work schedule. It means that in company A employees are more interested in physiological needs while in company B they are more interested in social needs. Fig. 1: Tree diagrams for the answers to question 1 for com- panies A and B Slika 1: Drevesni diagram za odgovore na vprašanje 1 za podjetji A in B 6 Faletar J., Jelačić D., Oblak L.: Comparison of motivation factors in two wood processing companies Fig. 2: Tree diagrams for the answers to question 2 for com- panies A and B Slika 2: Drevesni diagram za odgovore na vprašanje 2 za podjetji A in B Acta Silvae et Ligni 111 (2016), 1-11 7 Fig. 3: Tree diagrams for the answers to question 3 for com- panies A and B Slika 3: Drevesni diagram za odgovore na vprašanje 3 za podjetji A in B Fig. 4: Tree diagrams for the answers to question 4 for com- panies A and B Slika 4: Drevesni diagram za odgovore na vprašanje 4 za podjetji A in B 8 Faletar J., Jelačić D., Oblak L.: Comparison of motivation factors in two wood processing companies Figure 3 shows the way that employees think about a problem as a motivator, and in both companies emplo- yees strongly connected a problem as a motivator and special conditions required to solve the problem. Aga- in, the significant difference between two companies is the linkage distance between two answers. As shown in figure 4, the linkage distance between two answers to the question “�hy do people work?” was significantly different between two companies. �hile employees in company A marked “having so- mething” with higher average grade than employees in company B (3.68 comparing to 3.54), for “recogniti- on” the average grade in company B was higher than in company A (2.85 comparing to 2.61). Results of the cluster analysis for the question “how psychological circumstances influence work (Figure 5)” show that employees in both companies consider sense of responsibility and work importance very im- portant, but again the significant difference between two companies in the linkage difference between an- swers (the average grade of answers). The last question can be summarized by the fol- lowing results in Figure 6. Regarding de-motivating factors and their presence in the company, employees considered different factors as more present in com- pany A than those in company B. The strongest corre- lation is between the reprehending of employees and use of punishment in managing process, followed by a connection between less work to do and shortening of work hours in company A. In company B the strong- est connection was between the use of punishment in managing and the creation of tensions amongst em- ployees, followed by less freedom at work. 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 4 RAZPRAVA IN ZAKLJUČKI The aim of this research was to establish the dif- ferences between the motivation of employees in two wood processing companies. The research showed that the differences between all given questions and answers were statistically significantly different, so the cluster analysis was conducted to establish the linkage distance between answers to all the questions sepa- rately for both companies in research. The study further showed that employees consider different motivation factors as important in different companies. �hich motivating factors are more im- portant to employees in different companies mostly depends on fulfilling social and physiological needs, meaning that grading on importance of particular motivating factor depends on the work environment, managing skills of superiors, interrelationships be- tween employees, work responsibilities, as well as on salaries and security of the job. De-motivating factors and their presence in compa- nies also have big influence on employees’ satisfaction and motivation to work harder. Among de-motivating factors employees mostly refer to managing skills of Fig. 5: Tree diagrams for the answers to question 5 for com- panies A and B Slika 5: Drevesni diagram za odgovore na vprašanje 5 za podjetji A in B Acta Silvae et Ligni 111 (2016), 1-11 9 superiors, meaning they consider use of punishment in managing process the most important de-motivat- ing factor. 5 SUMMARY This research analyzed the motivating and de- motivating factors amongst employees in two wood processing companies. The aim of the research was to establish what motivating factors are most important to employees and their level of importance in two dif- ferent companies. The research method for collecting the data was a survey conducted by a questionnaire for employ- ees consisting of six questions. The conditions of key presumptions of different motivational theories were checked within the questionnaire. The questions were closed-ended, with respondents using a four-level scale of importance for each statement. The survey was conducted over the years 2014 and 2015. A total of 180 employees in each company were surveyed, and the differences in the frequency of answers given by employees between two companies were tested by the χ2-test for each individual question. The hypothesis H0 was that the distributions of answers to the same Fig. 6: Tree diagrams for the answers to question 6 for com- panies A and B Slika 6: Drevesni diagram za odgovore na vprašanje 6 za podjetji A in B 10 Faletar J., Jelačić D., Oblak L.: Comparison of motivation factors in two wood processing companies question given in both companies were equal. That test showed that there was a statistically significant differ- ence between distribution of all answers given in two different companies (for all tested values p < 0.01, with one exception, where p = 0,01). The study wished to es- tablish which answers to given questions were closer to each other than others. Therefore a cluster analysis was conducted. The study discovered that employees consider dif- ferent motivation factors as important in different com- panies. �hich motivating factors are more important to employees in different companies mostly depends on fulfilling social and physiological needs, meaning that grading on importance of particular motivating factor depends on the work environment, managing skills of superiors, interrelationships between employ- ees, work responsibilities, as well as on salaries and security of the job. De-motivating factors and their presence in compa- nies also have big influence on employees’ satisfaction and motivation. Among de-motivating factors employ- ees mostly refer to managing skills of superiors, mean- ing they consider use of punishment in managing pro- cess the most important de-motivating factor. Next research of this type should be conducted in a year or two from now, to investigate whether a changed and better work environment and some dif- ferent managing skills among superiors have a better or any different influence on motivating and de-moti- vating factors in companies under research. 5 POVZETEK V raziskavi smo analizirali motivacijske in de-mo- tivacijske dejavnike med zaposlenimi v dveh lesno- predelovalnih podjetjih. Cilj raziskave je bil ugotoviti, kateri motivacijski dejavniki so najpomembnejši za za- poslene v dveh različnih podjetjih in kakšna je njihov stopnja pomembnosti. Podatke smo zbirali z metodo anketiranja, raziska- va pa je temeljila na vprašalniku, sestavljenem iz šestih vprašanj, na katera so zaposleni odgovarjali. Z vprašal- nikom smo preverjali ključne predpostavke različnih motivacijskih teorij. Vprašanja so bila zaprtega tipa in anketiranci so z uporabo štirinivojske lestvice ocenje- vali pomembnosti posameznih dejavnikov. Raziskava je potekala v letih 2014 in 2015. Anketiranih je bilo skupno 180 zaposlenih v vsakem podjetju, razlike v pogostosti odgovorov med zaposlenimi v dveh podje- tjih pa smo ugotavljali z χ2-testom za vsako posamezno vprašanje. Hipoteza H0 je bila, da bo distribucija odgo- vorov na isto vprašanje v obeh podjetjih enaka. Test je pokazal, da ni bilo statistično pomembne razlike med distribucijo vseh odgovorov, podanih v dveh različnih podjetjih (za vse testirane vrednosti je bil p < 0,01). V raziskavi smo želeli ugotoviti, kateri odgovori na za- stavljena vprašanja so bliže drug drugemu. Zato je bila opravljena klasterska analiza. Študija je odkrila, da so zaposleni v obravnavanih podjetjih kot pomembne ocenili različne motivacijske dejavnike. Kateri motivacijski dejavniki so za zapo- slene v dveh preučevanih podjetjih bolj pomembni, je večinoma odvisno od zadovoljevanja socialnih in fizio- loških potreb, kar pomeni, da je stopnja pomembnosti posameznega motivacijskega dejavnika odvisna zlasti od delovnega okolja, upravljavskih znanj nadrejenih, medsebojnih odnosov med zaposlenimi, delovne od- govornosti kot tudi plače in varnosti zaposlitve. De-motivacijski dejavniki v podjetjih imajo prav tako velik vpliv na zadovoljstvo in motivacijo zaposle- nih. Med de-motivacijskimi dejavniki zaposleni največ- krat omenjajo upravljavske sposobnosti nadrejenih, pri čemer menijo, da je kaznovanje v procesu upravlja- nja najpomembnejši de-motivacijski dejavnik. Naslednja raziskava te vrste bi morala biti opravlje- na v letu ali dveh, da bi ugotovili, ali so spremenjeno in boljše delovno okolje ter drugačne upravljavske spre- tnosti nadrejenih imeli boljši ali drugačen vpliv na mo- tivacijske in de-motivacijske dejavnike v obravnavanih podjetjih. 6 REFERENCES 6 VIRI Bryan, L., and Farrell, D. (2008). “Leading through uncertainty,” McK- insey & Company (http://www.vedzen.com/mackenzie). Charan, R. (2008): Leadership in the Era of Economic Uncertainty: Managing in a Downturn (1st Edition), McGraw-Hill, New York. Daft, L. R., and Marcic, D. (2000). Understanding Management, Lon- don: Thomson learning. Fromm, E. (1996). To Have or to Be?, Continuum International Publi- shing Group, New York. George, J. M., and Jones, G. R. (1999). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour, 2nd edition, Addison-�esley, Reading, MA Glasser, �. (1994). The Control Theory Manager, Harper Business, New York. Glasser, �. (1999). Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Fre- edom, Harper Perennial, New York. Herzberg, F. (2008). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employ- ees?, Harvard Business Press, Boston. Jelačić, D., Galajdova, V., and Sujova, A. (2007). “Employees satisfac- tion in wood processing plants in Slovakia and Croatia,” Human Resource Management & Ergonomics 1(3), 15-23. Jelačić, D., Grladinović, T., Pirc, A., and Oblak, L. (2010). “Motivation factors analysis in industrial plants,” Strojarstvo 5(3), 349-361. Jelačić, D., Grladinović, T., Sujova, A., and Galajdova, V. (2008). “Motivirajući čimbenici u preradi drva i proizvodnji namještaja [Motivation factors in wood processing and furniture manufac- turing],” Drvna Industrija 59(1), 11-21. Acta Silvae et Ligni 111 (2016), 1-11 11 Kropivšek, J. (2003). “The impact of human resources management and organizational culture on adaptability of Slovenian wood- industry firms,” Zbornik Gozdarstva in Lesarstva, no. 70, 5-29. Kropivšek, J., Jelačić, D., and Grošelj, P. (2011). “Motivating employ- ees of slovenian and croatian wood industry companies in times of economic downturn,” Drvna industrija 62(2), 97-103. (DOI: 10.5552/drind.2011.1040). Kropivšek, J., and Rozman, R. (2007). “Organisational model of a globally oriented wood industry company,” Zbornik Gozdarstva in Lesarstva, no. 83, 15-21. Lipičnik, B. (1998). Ravnanje z Ljudmi pri Delu [Human Resource Management at Work], Gospodarski vestnik, Ljubljana. Lipičnik, B., and Možina, S. (1993). Psihologija v Podjetjih [Psychology in Companies], Ljubljana, DZS. Možina, S. (1998). “Zadovoljstvo zaposlenih in motivacija za poslov- no odličnost [Employees’ satisfaction and motivation for busi- ness effectiveness],” Industrijska Demokracija 5-8. Možina, S. (2002). Managenet Kadrovskih Virov [Management of Hu- man Resources], Fakulteta za organizacijske vede, Kranj. Mussa, M. (2010). “Global economic prospects as of September 30, 2010: “A moderating pace of global recovery,” Peterson institute for international economics, (http://piie.com/publications/pa- pers/mussa20100930.pdf).