WHAT IS MOTIVATION

MOTIVATION is the driving force by which humans achieve their goals. Motivation is said to
be intrinsic or extrinsic. The term is generally used for humans but it can also be used to describe
the causes for animal behavior as well. This article refers to human motivation. According to
various theories, motivation may be rooted in a basic need to minimize physical pain and
maximize pleasure, or it may include specific needs such as eating and resting, or a desired
object, goal, state of being, ideal, or it may be attributed to less-apparent reasons such
as altruism, selfishness, morality, or avoiding mortality. Conceptually, motivation should not be
confused with eithervolition or optimism. Motivation is related to, but distinct from, emotion.
Motivation concepts
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task
itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on any external pressure. Intrinsic
motivation has been studied by social and educational psychologists since the early 1970s.
Research has found that it is usually associated with high educational achievement and
enjoyment by students evaluation theory. Students are likely to be intrinsically motivated if they:
attribute their educational results to factors under their own control (e.g., the effort
expended),believe they can be effective agents in reaching desired goals (i.e. the results
are not determined by luck),are interested in mastering a topic, rather than just rote-
learning to achieve good grades.
Extrinsic motivation comes from outside of the individual. Common extrinsic motivations are
rewards like money and grades, coercion and threat of punishment. Competition is in general
extrinsic because it encourages the performer to win and beat others, not to enjoy the intrinsic
rewards of the activity. A crowd cheering on the individual and trophies are also extrinsic
incentives.
Social psychological research has indicated that extrinsic rewards can lead to over
justification and a subsequent reduction in intrinsic motivation. In one study demonstrating this
effect, children who expected to be (and were) rewarded with a ribbon and a gold star for
drawing pictures spent less time playing with the drawing materials in subsequent observations
than children who were assigned to an unexpected reward condition. For those children who
received no extrinsic reward, Self-determination theory proposes that extrinsic motivation can be
internalised by the individual if the task fits with their values and beliefs and therefore helps to
fulfill their basic psychological needs.
Self-control
The self-control of motivation is increasingly understood as a subset of emotional intelligence; a
person may be highly intelligent according to a more conservative definition (as measured by
many intelligence tests), yet unmotivated to dedicate this intelligence to certain tasks. Yale
School of Management professor Victor Vroom's "expectancy theory" provides an account of
when people will decide whether to exert self control to pursue a particular goal.
Drives and desires can be described as a deficiency or need that activates behavior that is aimed
at a goal or an incentive. These are thought to originate within the individual and may not
require external stimuli to encourage the behavior. Basic drives could be sparked by deficiencies
such as hunger, which motivates a person to seek food; whereas more subtle drives might be the
desire for praise and approval, which motivates a person to behave in a manner pleasing to
others.
By contrast, the role of extrinsic rewards and stimuli can be seen in the example of training
animals by giving them treats when they perform a trick correctly. The treat motivates the
animals to perform the trick consistently, even later when the treat is removed from the process.
Motivational theories
Incentive theory
A reward, tangible or intangible, is presented after the occurrence of an action (i.e. behavior)
with the intent to cause the behavior to occur again. This is done by associating positive meaning
to the behavior. Studies show that if the person receives the reward immediately, the effect is
greater, and decreases as duration lengthens. Repetitive action-reward combination can cause the
action to become habit. Motivation comes from two sources: oneself, and other people. These
two sources are called intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, respectively.
Reinforcers and reinforcement principles of behavior differ from the hypothetical construct of
reward. A reinforcer is any stimulus change following a response that increases the future
frequency or magnitude of that response, therefore the cognitivive approach is certainly the way
forward as in 1973 Maslow descibed it as being the golden pineapple. Positive reinforcement is
demonstrated by an increase in the future frequency or magnitude of a response due to in the past
being followed contingently by a reinforcing stimulus. Negative reinforcement involves stimulus
change consisting of the removal of an aversive stimulus following a response. Positive
reinforcement involves a stimulus change consisting of the presentation or magnification of an
appetitive stimulus following a response. From this perspective, motivation is mediated by
environmental events, and the concept of distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic forces is
irrelevant.
Applying proper motivational techniques can be much harder than it seems. Steven Kerr notes
that when creating a reward system, it can be easy to reward A, while hoping for B, and in the
process, reap harmful effects that can jeopardize your goals.
Incentive theory in psychology treats motivation and behavior of the individual as they are
influenced by beliefs, such as engaging in activities that are expected to be profitable. Incentive
theory is promoted bybehavioral psychologists, such as B.F. Skinner and literalized by
behaviorists, especially by Skinner in his philosophy of Radical behaviorism, to mean that a
person's actions always have social ramifications: and if actions are positively received people
are more likely to act in this manner, or if negatively received people are less likely to act in this
manner.
Incentive theory distinguishes itself from other motivation theories, such as drive theory, in the
direction of the motivation. In incentive theory, stimuli "attract", to use the term above, a person
towards them. As opposed to the body seeking to reestablish homeostasis pushing it towards the
stimulus. In terms of behaviorism, incentive theory involves positive reinforcement: the stimulus
has been conditioned to make the person happier. For instance, a person knows that eating food,
drinking water, or gaining social capital will make them happier. As opposed to in drive theory,
which involves negative reinforcement: a stimulus has been associated with the removal of
the punishment-- the lack of homeostasis in the body. For example, a person has come to know
that if they eat when hungry, it will eliminate that negative feeling of hunger, or if they drink
when thirsty, it will eliminate that negative feeling of thirst.
Drive-reduction theory
There are a number of drive theories. The Drive Reduction Theory grows out of the concept
that we have certain biological drives, such as hunger. As time passes the strength of the drive
increases if it is not satisfied (in this case by eating). Upon satisfying a drive the drive's strength
is reduced. The theory is based on diverse ideas from the theories of Freud to the ideas
of feedback control systems, such as athermostat.
Drive theory has some intuitive or folk validity. For instance when preparing food, the drive
model appears to be compatible with sensations of rising hunger as the food is prepared, and,
after the food has been consumed, a decrease in subjective hunger. There are several problems,
however, that leave the validity of drive reduction open for debate. The first problem is that it
does not explain how secondary reinforcers reduce drive. For example, money satisfies no
biological or psychological needs, but a pay check appears to reduce drive through second-order
conditioning. Secondly, a drive, such as hunger, is viewed as having a "desire" to eat, making the
drive a homuncular beinga feature criticized as simply moving the fundamental problem
behind this "small man" and his desires.
In addition, it is clear that drive reduction theory cannot be a complete theory of behavior, or a
hungry human could not prepare a meal without eating the food before he finished cooking it.
The ability of drive theory to cope with all kinds of behavior, from not satisfying a drive (by
adding on other traits such as restraint), or adding additional drives for "tasty" food, which
combine with drives for "food" in order to explain cooking render it hard to test.
Cognitive dissonance theory
Suggested by Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual experiences some
degree of discomfort resulting from an incompatibility between two cognitions. For example, a
consumer may seek to reassure himself regarding a purchase, feeling, in retrospect, that another
decision may have been preferable.
While not a theory of motivation, per se, the theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people
have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs,
or actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most
influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Need theories
Need hierarchy theory
The content theory includes the hierarchy of needs from Abraham Maslow and the two- factor
theory from Herzberg. Maslow's theory is one of the most widely discussed theories of
motivation.
The American motivation psychologist Abraham H. Maslow developed the Hierarchy of needs
consistent of five hierarchic classes. It shows the complexity of human requirements. Maslow
says that first of all the basic requirements have to be satisfied. The basic requirements build the
first step in his pyramid. They decide about to be or not to be. If there is any deficit on this level,
the whole behavior of a human will be oriented to satisfy this deficit. Subsequently we do have
the second level, which awake a need for security. Basically it is oriented on a future need for
security. After securing those two levels, the motives shift in the social sphere, which form the
third stage. Psychological requirements consist in the fourth level, while the top of the hierarchy
comprise the self- realization So theory can be summarized as follows:
Human beings have wants and desires which influence their behavior. Only unsatisfied needs
influence behavior, satisfied needs do not.
Since needs are many, they are arranged in order of importance, from the basic to the complex.
The person advances to the next level of needs only after the lower level need is at least
minimally satisfied.
The further the progress up the hierarchy, the more individuality, humanness and psychological
health a person will show.
The needs, listed from basic (lowest-earliest) to most complex (highest-latest) are as follows:
Physiology (hunger, thirst, sleep, etc.)
Safety/Security/Shelter/Health
Belongingness/Love/Friendship
Self-esteem/Recognition/Achievement
Self actualization
Herzberg's two-factor theory
Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory, a.k.a. intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, concludes that
certain factors in the workplace result in job satisfaction, but if absent, they don't lead to
dissatisfaction but no satisfaction.The factors that motivate people can change over their lifetime,
but "respect for me as a person" is one of the top motivating factors at any stage of life.
He distinguished between:
Motivators; (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) which give positive
satisfaction, and
Hygiene factors; (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits) that do not motivate
if present, but, if absent, result in demotivation.
The name Hygiene factors is used because, like hygiene, the presence will not make you
healthier, but absence can cause health deterioration.
The theory is sometimes called the "Motivator-Hygiene Theory" and/or "The Dual Structure
Theory."
Herzberg's theory has found application in such occupational fields as information systems and
in studies of user satisfaction (see Computer user satisfaction).
Alderfer's ERG theory
Alderfer, expanding on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, created the ERG theory. This theory posits
that there are three groups of core needs existence, relatedness, and growth, hence the label:
ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence
requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety
needs. The second group of needs are those of relatedness- the desire we have for maintaining
important interpersonal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with
others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow's social need and the external
component of Maslow's esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs' an
intrinsic desire for personal development. These include the intrinsic component from Maslow's
esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization.
Self-determination theory
Self-determination theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, focuses on the
importance of intrinsic motivation in driving human behavior. Like Maslow's hierarchical theory
and others that built on it, SDT posits a natural tendency toward growth and development.
Unlike these other theories, however, SDT does not include any sort of "autopilot" for
achievement, but instead requires active encouragement from the environment. The primary
factors that encourage motivation and development are autonomy, competence feedback, and
relatedness.
Broad theories
The latest approach in developing a broad, integrative theory of motivation is Temporal
Motivation Theory. Integrating theories of motivation. Introduced in their 2007 Academy of
Management Review article, it synthesizes into a single formulation the primary aspects of all
other major motivational theories, including Incentive Theory, Drive Theory, Need Theory, Self-
Efficacy and Goal Setting. Notably, it simplifies the field of motivation considerably and allows
findings from one theory to be translated into terms of another.
Also, Achievement Motivation is an integrative perspective based on the premise that
performance motivation results from the way broad components of personality are directed
towards performance. As a result, it includes a range of dimensions that are relevant to success at
work but which are not conventionally regarded as being part of performance motivation.
Especially it integrates formerly separated approaches as Need for Achievement with e.g. social
motives like dominance. The Achievement Motivation Inventory is based on this theory and
assesses three factors (17 separated scales) relevant to vocational and professional success.
Cognitive theories
Goal-setting theory
Goal-setting theory is based on the notion that individuals sometimes have a drive to reach a
clearly defined end state. Often, this end state is a reward in itself. A goal's efficiency is affected
by three features: proximity, difficulty and specificity. An ideal goal should present a situation
where the time between the initiation of behavior and the end state is close. This explains why
some children are more motivated to learn how to ride a bike than to master algebra. A goal
should be moderate, not too hard or too easy to complete. In both cases, most people are not
optimally motivated, as many want a challenge (which assumes some kind of insecurity of
success). At the same time people want to feel that there is a substantial probability that they will
succeed. Specificity concerns the description of the goal in their class. The goal should be
objectively defined and intelligible for the individual. A classic example of a poorly specified
goal is to get the highest possible grade. Most children have no idea how much effort they need
to reach that goal.
Models of behavior change
Social-cognitive models of behavior change include the constructs of motivation and volition.
Motivation is seen as a process that leads to the forming of behavioral intentions. Volition is seen
as a process that leads from intention to actual behavior. In other words, motivation and volition
refer to goal setting and goal pursuit, respectively. Both processes require self-regulatory efforts.
Several self-regulatory constructs are needed to operate in orchestration to attain goals. An
example of such a motivational and volitional construct is perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy
is supposed to facilitate the forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans,
and the initiation of action. It can support the translation of intentions into action.
Unconscious motivation
Some psychologists believe that a significant portion of human behavior is energized and
directed by unconscious motives. According to Maslow, "Psychoanalysis has often demonstrated
that the relationship between a conscious desire and the ultimate unconscious aim that underlies
it need not be at all direct.
Controlling motivation
The control of motivation is only understood to a limited extent. There are many different
approaches of motivation training, but many of these are considered pseudoscientific by critics.
To understand how to control motivation it is first necessary to understand why many people
lack motivation.
Employee motivation
Workers in any organization need something to keep them working. Most times the salary of the
employee is enough to keep him or her working for an organization. However, sometimes just
working for salary is not enough for employees to stay at an organization. An employee must be
motivated to work for a company or organization. If no motivation is present in an employee,
then that employees quality of work or all work in general will deteriorate.
Employee motivation is the level of energy, commitment, and creativity that a company's
workers apply to their jobs. In the increasingly competitive business environment of recent years,
finding ways to motivate employees has become a pressing concern for many managers. In fact,
a number of different theories and methods of employee motivation have emerged, ranging from
monetary incentives to increased involvement and empowerment. Employee motivation can
sometimes be particularly problematic for small businesses, where the owner often has spent so
many years building a company that he/she finds it difficult to delegate meaningful
responsibilities to others. But entrepreneurs should be mindful of such pitfalls, for the effects of
low employee motivation on small businesses can be devastating. Some of the problems
associated with unmotivated workers include complacency, declining morale, and widespread
discouragement. If allowed to continue, these problems can reduce productivity, earnings, and
competitiveness in a small business.
On the other hand, small businesses can also provide an ideal atmosphere for fostering employee
motivation, because employees are able to see the results of their contributions in a more
immediate way than in large firms. Besides increasing productivity and competitiveness, a highly
motivated work force can allow a small business owner to relinquish day-today, operational
control and instead concentrate on long-term strategies to grow the business. "Workers really do
want to be inspired about their work, and when they are, they work better, smarter, and harder,"
business coach Don Maruska told Entrepreneur.
Moreover, a business that institutes effective wayswhether tangible (such as a financial bonus)
or intangible (say, a plum assignment for an upcoming project)of rewarding employees for
good work can be an invaluable tool in employee retention. "People enjoy working, and tend to
thrive in organizations that create positive work environments," one business researcher told HR
Focus. "[They thrive in] environments where they can make a difference, and where most people
in the organization are competent and pulling together to move the company forward.
Appropriately structured reward and recognition programs are important, but not exclusive,
components in this mix."
WHAT MOTIVATES
One approach to employee motivation has been to view "add-ins" to an individual's job as the
primary factors in improving performance. Endless mixes of employee benefitssuch as health
care, life insurance, profit sharing, employee stock ownership plans, exercise facilities,
subsidized meal plans, child care availability, company cars, and morehave been used by
companies in their efforts to maintain happy employees in the belief that happy employees are
motivated employees.
Many modern theorists, however, propose that the motivation an employee feels toward his or
her job has less to do with material rewards than with the design of the job itself. Studies as far
back as 1950 have shown that highly segmented and simplified jobs resulted in lower employee
morale and output. Other consequences of low employee motivation include absenteeism and
high turnover, both of which are very costly for any company. As a result, "job enlargement"
initiatives began to crop up in major companies in the 1950s.
On the academic front, Turner and Lawrence suggested that there are three basic characteristics
of a "motivating" job:
It must allow a worker to feel personally responsible for a meaningful portion of the work
accomplished. An employee must feel ownership of and connection with the work he or she
performs. Even in team situations, a successful effort will foster an awareness in an individual
that his or her contributions were important in accomplishing the group's tasks.
It must provide outcomes which have intrinsic meaning to the individual. Effective work that
does not lead a worker to feel that his or her efforts matter will not be maintained. The outcome
of an employee's work must have value to himself or herself and to others in the organization.
It must provide the employee with feedback about his or her accomplishments. A constructive,
believable critique of the work performed is crucial to a worker's motivation to improve.
While terminology changes, the tenets of employee motivation remain relatively unchanged from
findings over half a century ago. Today's buzzwords include "empowerment," "quality circles,"
and "teamwork." All of these terms demonstrate the three characteristics of motivating jobs set
forth in the theory of Turner and Lawrence. Empowerment gives autonomy and allows an
employee to have ownership of ideas and accomplishments, whether acting alone or in teams.
Quality circles and the increasing occurrence of teams in today's work environments give
employees opportunities to reinforce the importance of the work accomplished by members as
well as receive feedback on the efficacy of that work.
In small businesses, which may lack the resources to enact formal employee motivation
programs, managers can nonetheless accomplish the same basic principles. In order to help
employees feel like their jobs are meaningful and that their contributions are valuable to the
company, the small business owner needs to communicate the company's purpose to employees.
This communication should take the form of words as well as actions. In addition, the small
business owner should set high standards for employees, but also remain supportive of their
efforts when goals cannot be reached. It may also be helpful to allow employees as much
autonomy and flexibility as possible in how their jobs are performed. Creativity will be
encouraged if honest mistakes are corrected but not punished. Finally, the small business owner
should take steps to incorporate the vision of employees for the company with his or her own
vision. This will motivate employees to contribute to the small business's goals, as well as help
prevent stagnation in its direction and purpose.
MOTIVATION METHODS
There are as many different methods of motivating employees today as there are companies
operating in the global business environment. Still, some strategies are prevalent across all
organizations striving to improve employee motivation. The best employee motivation efforts
will focus on what the employees deem to be important. It may be that employees within the
same department of the same organization will have different motivators. Many organizations
today find that flexibility in job design and reward systems has resulted in employees' increased
longevity with the company, improved productivity, and better morale.
EMPOWERMENT Giving employees more responsibility and decision-making authority
increases their realm of control over the tasks for which they are held responsible and better
equips them to carry out those tasks. As a result, feelings of frustration arising from being held
accountable for something one does not have the resources to carry out are diminished. Energy is
diverted from self-preservation to improved task accomplishment.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION At many companies, employees with creative ideas do
not express them to management for fear that their input will be ignored or ridiculed. Company
approval and toeing the company line have become so ingrained in some working environments
that both the employee and the organization suffer. When the power to create in the organization
is pushed down from the top to line personnel, employees who know a job, product, or service
best are given the opportunity to use their ideas to improve it. The power to create motivates
employees and benefits the organization in having a more flexible work force, using more wisely
the experience of its employees, and increasing the exchange of ideas and information among
employees and departments. These improvements also create an openness to change that can
give a company the ability to respond quickly to market changes and sustain a first mover
advantage in the marketplace.
LEARNING If employees are given the tools and the opportunities to accomplish more, most
will take on the challenge. Companies can motivate employees to achieve more by committing to
perpetual enhancement of employee skills. Accreditation and licensing programs for employees
are an increasingly popular and effective way to bring about growth in employee knowledge and
motivation. Often, these programs improve employees' attitudes toward the client and the
company, while bolstering self-confidence. Supporting this assertion, an analysis of factors
which influence motivation-to-learn found that it is directly related to the extent to which
training participants believe that such participation will affect their job or career utility. In other
words, if the body of knowledge gained can be applied to the work to be accomplished, then the
acquisition of that knowledge will be a worthwhile event for the employee and employer.
QUALITY OF LIFE The number of hours worked each week by American workers is on the
rise, and many families have two adults working those increased hours. Under these
circumstances, many workers are left wondering how to meet the demands of their lives beyond
the workplace. Often, this concern occurs while at work and may reduce an employee's
productivity and morale. Companies that have instituted flexible employee arrangements have
gained motivated employees whose productivity has increased. Programs incorporating flextime,
condensed workweeks, or job sharing, for example, have been successful in focusing
overwhelmed employees toward the work to be done and away from the demands of their private
lives.
MONETARY INCENTIVE For all the championing of alternative motivators, money still
occupies a major place in the mix of motivators. The sharing of a company's profits gives
incentive to employees to produce a quality product, perform a quality service, or improve the
quality of a process within the company. What benefits the company directly benefits the
employee. Monetary and other rewards are being given to employees for generating cost-savings
or process-improving ideas, to boost productivity and reduce absenteeism. Money is effective
when it is directly tied to an employee's ideas or accomplishments. Nevertheless, if not coupled
with other, nonmonetary motivators, its motivating effects are short-lived. Further, monetary
incentives can prove counterproductive if not made available to all members of the organization.
OTHER INCENTIVES Study after study has found that the most effective motivators of
workers are nonmonetary. Monetary systems are insufficient motivators, in part because
expectations often exceed results and because disparity between salaried individuals may divide
rather than unite employees. Proven nonmonetary positive motivators foster team spirit and
include recognition, responsibility, and advancement. Managers who recognize the "small wins"
of employees, promote participatory environments, and treat employees with fairness and respect
will find their employees to be more highly motivated. One company's managers brainstormed to
come up with 30 powerful rewards that cost little or nothing to implement. The most effective
rewards, such as letters of commendation and time off from work, enhanced personal ful-fillment
and self-respect. Over the longer term, sincere praise and personal gestures are far more effective
and more economical than awards of money alone. In the end, a program that combines
monetary reward systems and satisfies intrinsic, self-actualizing needs may be the most potent
employee motivator.
JOB SATISFACTION
describes how content an individual is with his /her job. The happier people are within their job,
the more satisfied they are said to be. Job satisfaction is not the same as motivation or aptitude,
although it is clearly linked. Job design aims to enhance job satisfaction and performance,
methods include job rotation, job enlargement, job enrichment and job re-engineering. Other
influences on satisfaction include the management style and culture, employee involvement,
empowerment and autonomous work position. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute
which is frequently measured by organizations. The most common way of measurement is the
use of rating scales where employees report their reactions to their jobs. Questions relate to rate
of pay, work responsibilities, variety of tasks, promotional opportunities, the work itself and co-
workers. Some questioners ask yes or no questions while others ask to rate satisfaction on 1-5
scale (where 1 represents "not at all satisfied" and 5 represents "extremely satisfied").
Definition
Job satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
ones job; an affective reaction to ones job;and an attitude towards ones job. Weiss (2002) has
argued that job satisfaction is an attitude but points out that researchers should clearly distinguish
the objects of cognitive evaluation which are affect (emotion), beliefs and behaviours. This
definition suggests that we form attitudes towards our jobs by taking into account our feelings,
our beliefs, and our behaviors.
History
One of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These
studies (19241933), primarily credited to Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School, sought
to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers productivity.
These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase
productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from
the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong
evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to
investigate other factors in job satisfaction.
Scientific management (aka Taylorism) also had a significant impact on the study of job
satisfaction. Frederick Winslow Taylors 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management,
argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to
a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor
and piecework towards the more modern of assembly lines and hourly wages. The initial use of
scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced
to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving
researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. It should also be noted that
the work of W.L. Bryan, Walter Dill Scott, and Hugo Munsterberg set the tone for Taylors
work.
Some argue that Maslows hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for
job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life
physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This
model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction
theories.
Job satisfaction can also be seen within the broader context of the range of issues which affect an
individual's experience of work, or their quality of working life. Job satisfaction can be
understood in terms of its relationships with other key factors, such as general well-being, stress
at work, control at work, home-work interface, and working conditions.
Models of job satisfaction
Affect Theory
Edwin A. Lockes Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction
model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy
between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how
much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates
how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/arent met. When a person values
a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when
expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who
doesnt value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and
Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a
position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no
autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet
will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.
Dispositional Theory
Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory Template:JacksonApril
2007. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause
them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of ones job. This
approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job
satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that
identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction.
A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the Core Self-
evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in
1997.
[5]
Judge et al. argued that there are four Core Self-evaluations that determine ones
disposition towards job satisfaction: self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control,
and neuroticism. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on
his/her self) and general self-efficacy (the belief in ones own competence) lead to higher work
satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over her\his own life,
as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels
of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.
Two-Factor Theory (Motivator-Hygiene Theory)
Frederick Herzbergs Two factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to
explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace This theory states that satisfaction and
dissatisfaction are driven by different factors motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An
employees motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate.
Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and
organizational goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench, p. 133). Motivating factors are those aspects
of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example
achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities. These motivating factors are
considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out. Hygiene factors include aspects of
the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other
working conditions.
While Hertzberg's model has stimulated much research, researchers have been unable to reliably
empirically prove the model, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Hertzberg's original
formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact.

Furthermore, the theory does
not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical
manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.Finally, the model has been criticised in that it
does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.
[

Job Characteristics Model
Hackman & Oldham proposed the Job Characteristics Model, which is widely used as a
framework to study how particular job characteristics impact on job outcomes, including job
satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics (skill variety, task
identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact three critical psychological
states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of
the actual results), in turn influencing work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work
motivation, etc.).The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential
score (MPS) for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an
employee's attitudes and behaviors----. A meta-analysis of studies that assess the framework of
the model provides some support for the validity of the JCM.
Measuring job satisfaction
There are many methods for measuring job satisfaction. By far, the most common method for
collecting data regarding job satisfaction is the Likert scale (named after Rensis Likert). Other
less common methods of for gauging job satisfaction include: Yes/No questions, True/False
questions, point systems, checklists, and forced choice answers. This data are sometimes
collected using an Enterprise Feedback Management(EFM) system.
The Job Descriptive Index (JDI), created by Smith, Kendall, & Hulin (1969), is a specific
questionnaire of job satisfaction that has been widely used. It measures ones satisfaction in five
facets: pay, promotions and promotion opportunities, coworkers, supervision, and the work itself.
The scale is simple, participants answer either yes, no, or cant decide (indicated by ?) in
response to whether given statements accurately describe ones job.
The Job in General Index is an overall measurement of job satisfaction. It is an improvement to
the Job Descriptive Index because the JDI focuses too much on individual facets and not enough
on work satisfaction in general.
Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ),
the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), and the Faces Scale. The MSQ measures job satisfaction in 20
facets and has a long form with 100 questions (five items from each facet) and a short form with
20 questions (one item from each facet). The JSS is a 36 item questionnaire that measures nine
facets of job satisfaction. Finally, the Faces Scale of job satisfaction, one of the first scales used
widely, measured overall job satisfaction with just one item which participants respond to by
choosing a face..
Relationships and practical implications
Job Satisfaction can be an important indicator of how employees feel about their jobs and a
predictor of work behaviours such as organizational
citizenship,absenteeism, and turnover.Further, job satisfaction can partially mediate the
relationship of personality variables and deviant work behaviors.
One common research finding is that job satisfaction is correlated with life satisfaction. This
correlation is reciprocal, meaning people who are satisfied with life tend to be satisfied with their
job and people who are satisfied with their job tend to be satisfied with life. However, some
research has found that job satisfaction is not significantly related to life satisfaction when other
variables such as nonwork satisfaction and core self-evaluations are taken into account.
An important finding for organizations to note is that job satisfaction has a rather
tenuous correlation to productivity on the job. This is a vital piece of information to researchers
and businesses, as the idea that satisfaction and job performance are directly related to one
another is often cited in the media and in some non-academic management literature. A
recent meta-analysis found an average uncorrected correlation between job satisfaction and
productivity to be r = 0.18; the average true correlation, corrected for research artifacts and
unreliability, was r = 0.30 Further, the meta-analysis found that the relationship between
satisfaction and performance can be moderated by job complexity, such that for high-complexity
jobs the correlation between satisfaction and performance is higher ( = 0.52) than for jobs of
low to moderate complexity ( = 0.29). Job Satisfaction also have high relationship with
intention to quit. It is found in many research that Job Satisfaction can lead to Intention to Stay /
Quit in an organization (Kim et al., 1996). Recent research has also shown that Intention to Quit
can have effect like poor performance orientation, organizational deviance, and poor
organizational citizenship behaviours.
[
In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is
not necessarily straightforward and can be influenced by a number of other work-related
constructs, and the notion that "a happy worker is a productive worker" should not be the
foundation of organizational decision-making.
With regard to job performance, employee personality may be more important than job
satisfaction. The link between job satisfaction and performance is thought to be a spurious
relationship; instead, both satisfaction and performance are the result of personality.
JOB PERFORMANCE
Is a commonly used, yet poorly defined concept in industrial and organizational psychology, the
branch of psychology that deals with the workplace. It's also part of Human Resources
Management. It most commonly refers to whether a person performs their job well. Despite the
confusion over how it should be exactly defined, performance is an extremely important criterion
that relates to organizational outcomes and success. Among the most commonly accepted
theories of job performance comes from the work of John P. Campbell and colleagues. Coming
from a psychological perspective, Campbell describes job performance as an individual level
variable. That is, performance is something a single person does. This differentiates it from more
encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance which are
higher level variables.
Features of job performance
There are several key features to Campbell's conceptualization of job performance which help
clarify what job performance means.

Performance versus outcomes
First, Campbell defines performance as behavior. It is something done by the employee. This
concept differentiates performance from outcomes. Outcomes are the result of an individual's
performance, but they are also the result of other influences. In other words, there are more
factors that determine outcomes than just an employee's behaviors and actions.
Campbell allows for exceptions when defining performance as behavior. For instance, he
clarifies that performance does not have to be directly observable actions of an individual. It can
consist of mental productions such as answers or decisions. However, performance needs to be
under the individual's control, regardless of whether the performance of interest is mental or
behavioral.
The difference between individual controlled action and outcomes is best conveyed through an
example. On a sales job, a favorable outcome is a certain level of revenue generated through the
sale of something (merchandise, some service, insurance). Revenue can be generated or not,
depending on the behavior of employees. When the employee performs this sales job well, he is
able to move more merchandise. However, certain factors other than employees' behavior
influence revenue generated. For example, sales might slump due to economic conditions,
changes in customer preferences, production bottlenecks, etc. In these conditions, employee
performance can be adequate, yet sales can still be low. The first is performance and the second
is the effectiveness of that performance. These two can be decoupled because performance is not
the same as effectiveness.
Another closely related construct is productivity. This can be thought of as a comparison of the
amount of effectiveness that results from a certain level of cost associated with that
effectiveness. In other words, effectiveness is the ratio of outputs to inputsthose inputs being
effort, monetary costs, resources, etc.
Utility is another related construct which is defined as the value of a particular level of
performance, effectiveness, or productivity. Utilities of performance, effectiveness, and
productivity are value judgments.
Organizational goal relevance
Another key feature of job performance is that it has to be goal relevant. Performance must be
directed toward organizational goals that are relevant to the job or role. Therefore, performance
does not include activities where effort is expended toward achieving peripheral goals. For
example, the effort put toward the goal of getting to work in the shortest amount of time is not
performance (except where it is concerned with avoiding lateness).
Multidimensionality
Despite the emphasis on defining and predicting job performance, it is not a single unified
construct. There are vastly many jobs each with different performance standards. Therefore, job
performance is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of more than one kind
of behavior. Campbell (1990) proposed an eight factor model of performance based on factor
analytic research that attempts to capture dimensions of job performance existent (to a greater or
lesser extent) across all jobs.
1. The first factor is task specific behaviors which include those behaviors that an
individual undertakes as part of a job. They are the core substantive tasks that delineate
one job from another.
2. On the other hand, non-task specific behaviors, the second factor, are those behaviors
which an individual is required to undertake which do not pertain only to a particular job.
Returning to the sales person, an example of a task specific behavior would be showing a
product to a potential customer. A non-task specific behavior of a sales person might be
training new staff members.
3. Written and oral communication tasks refer to activities where the incumbent is
evaluated, not on the content of a message necessarily, but on the adeptness with which
they deliver the communication. Employees need to make formal and informal oral and
written presentations to various audiences in many different jobs in the work force.
4. An individual's performance can also be assessed in terms of effort, either day to day, or
when there are extraordinary circumstances. This factor reflects the degree to which
people commit themselves to job tasks.
5. The performance domain might also include an aspect of personal discipline. Individuals
would be expected to be in good standing with the law, not abuse alcohol, etc.
6. In jobs where people work closely or are highly interdependent, performance may
include the degree to which a person helps out the groups and his or her colleagues.
This might include acting as a good role model, coaching, giving advice or helping
maintain group goals.
7. Many jobs also have a supervisory or leadership component. The individual will be
relied upon to undertake many of the things delineated under the previous factor and in
addition will be responsible for meting out rewards and punishments. These aspects of
performance happen in a face to face manner.
8. Managerial and administrative performance entails those aspects of a job which serve the
group or organization but do not involve direct supervision. A managerial task would
be setting an organizational goal or responding to external stimuli to assist a group in
achieving its goals. In addition a manager might be responsible for monitoring group and
individual progress towards goals and monitoring organizational resources.
Another taxonomy of job performance was proposed and developed for the US Navy by Murphy
(1994). This model is significantly broader and breaks performance into only four dimensions.
1. Task-oriented behaviors are similar to task-specific behaviors in Campbell's model. This
dimension includes any major tasks relevant to someone's job.
2. Interpersonally oriented behaviors are represented by any interaction the focal employee
has with other employees. These can be task related or non-task related. This dimension
diverges from Campbell's taxonomy because it included behaviors (small talk,
socializing, etc.) that are not targeting an organization's goal.
3. Down-time behaviors are behaviors that employees engage in during their free time either
at work or off-site. Down-time behaviors that occur off-site are only considered job
performance when they subsequently affect job performance (for example, outside
behaviors that cause absenteeism).
4. Destructive/hazardous behaviors
In addition to these models dividing performance into dimensions, others have identified
different types of behaviors making up performance.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:
The objective of the study is to understand the relation and impact of employee motivation on
job satisfaction which can be a leading factor in improving and enhancing their performance. In
the study of human behavior, motivation is a basic psychological process, like perception and
learning. On the other hand, it must be remembered that motivation should not be thought as the
only explanation of behavior. Many people equate the causes of perception and learning, it is
presented here as being a very important process in understanding behavior. It interacts with and
acts in conjunction with other psychological process and personality. Motivation cannot be seen.
All that can be seen is behavior. Many believe that the key to improve performance and
productivity in any area/endeavor is motivation rather than ability. The challenge for today
management is to administer motivational programs and variables, which will encourage
employees to improve their work performance.


REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The job satisfactionjob performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
ABSTRACT
A qualitative and quantitative review of the relationship between job satisfaction and job
performance is provided. The qualitative review is organized around 7 models that characterize
past research on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Although some
models have received more support than have others, research has not provided conclusive
confirmation or discontinuation of any model, partly because of a lack of assimilation and
integration in the literature. Research devoted to testing these models waned following 2 meta-
analyses of the job satisfactionjob performance relationship. Because of limitations in these
prior analyses and the misinterpretation of their findings, a new meta-analysis was conducted on
312 samples with a combined N of 54,417. The mean true correlation between overall job
satisfaction and job performance was estimated to be .30. In light of these results and the
qualitative review, an agenda for future research on the satisfactionperformance relationship is
provided.
Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation.
ABSTRACT
The literature concerning the relationship between emotional exhaustion and performance led
researchers to raise questions about the extent to which the variables are related. In 2 time-lagged
samples, the authors found that motivation mediates the emotional exhaustion-job performance
relationship. Moreover, the authors found that participants appear to target their investment of
resources in response to emotional exhaustion to develop social support through social exchange;
specifically, emotional exhaustion was associated with communion striving resources that were
manifest in the form of organizational citizenship behaviors targeted at individuals. Implications
of this relationship for theories of burnout and for management practice are discussed.

The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer
learning and turnover intention
Abstract
Although organizational learning theory and practice have been clarified by practitioners and
scholars over the past several years, there is much to be explored regarding interactions between
organizational learning culture and employee learning and performance outcomes. This study
examined the relationship of organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, and organizational
outcome variables with a sample of information technology (IT) employees in the United States.
It found that learning organizational culture is associated with IT employee job satisfaction and
motivation to transfer learning. Turnover intention was found to be negatively influenced by
organizational learning culture and job satisfaction. Suggestions for future study of learning
organizational culture in association with job satisfaction and performance-related outcomes are
discussed.

Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic
motivation.
ABSTRACT
Administered questionnaires to 291 scientists working in research and development laboratories.
Results of a factor analysis indicate that job-involvement attitudes, higher order need-satisfaction
attitudes, and intrinsic-motivation attitudes should be thought of as separate and distinct kinds of
attitudes toward a job. These 3 types of attitudes related differentially to job design factors and to
job behavior. Satisfaction proved to be related to such job characteristics as the amount of
control the job allowed the holder and the degree to which it is seen to be relevant to the holder's
valued abilities. Satisfaction was not related to either self-rated effort or performance. Job
involvement, like satisfaction, bore a significant relationship to certain job characteristics; unlike
satisfaction, however, involvement was positively related to self-rated effort. Intrinsic motivation
was less strongly related to the job characterisitcs measured, but was more strongly related to
both effort and performance than was either satisfaction or involvement.
Motivation and job satisfaction
Abstract:
The movement of workers to act in a desired manner has always consumed the thoughts of
managers. In many ways, this goal has been reached through incentive programs, corporate pep
talks, and other types of conditional administrative policy, However, as the workers adjust their
behaviour in response to one of the aforementioned stimuli, is job satisfaction actualized? The
instilling of satisfaction within workers is a crucial task of management. Satisfaction creates
confidence, loyalty and ultimately improved quality in the output of the employed. Satisfaction,
though, is not the simple result of an incentive program. Employees will most likely not take any
more pride in their work even if they win the weekend getaway for having the highest sales. This
paper reviews the literature of motivational theorists and draws from their approaches to job
satisfaction and the role of motivation within job satisfaction. The theories of Frederick Herzberg
and Edwin Locke are presented chronologically to show how Lockes theory was a response to
Herzbergs theory. By understanding these theories, managers can focus on strategies of creating
job satisfaction. This is followed by a brief examination of Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Herseys
theory on leadership within management and how this art is changing through time.
Determinants of Employee Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Test of a Causal Model
Abstract
The job satisfaction model embedded in the Price-Mueller turnover model was revised and
estimated. The revised model examined the effects of a series of environmental, job
characteristics, and personality variables that were excluded from the Price-Mueller model. Two-
wave longitudinal data were collected from 405 employees of a 327-bed Veterans
Administration Medical Center. Four different models representing refinements of the proposed
model were estimated using LISREL maximum likelihood methods. The exclusion of important
job characteristics (role conflict, supervisory support, and task significance) by the Price-Mueller
model was not found to have a significant impact on the explanatory power of the revised model.
However, the exclusion of an environmental factor (opportunity) and a personality variable
(positive affectivity) was found to be a serious omission. Overall, it was found that the degree to
which employees like their job is influenced by a combination of characteristics of the
environment (opportunity), the job (routinization and distributive justice), and personality
variables (positive affectivity and work motivation). Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the variance in
job satisfaction was explained by the revised model, as compared with 49% for the Price-Mueller
model.
Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the End of the Tunnel
After decades of research it is now possible to offer a coherent, data-based theory of work
motivation and job satisfaction. The present model combines aspects of the following theories:
goal setting, expectancy, social-cognitive, attribution, job characteristics, equity, and turnover-
commitment. The resulting model is called the high performance cycle. It begins with
organizational members being faced with high challenge or difficult goals. If high challenge is
accompanied by high expectancy of success or self-efficacy, high performance results, given that
there is: commitment to the goals, feedback, adequate ability, and low situational constraints.
High performance is achieved through four mechanisms, direction of attention and action, effort,
persistence, and the development of task strategies and plans. High performance, if rewarding,
leads to job satisfaction, which in turn facilitates commitment to the organization and its goals.
The model has implications for leadership, self-management, and education.
The Relationship of Job Satisfaction With Substitutes of Leadership, Leadership Behavior,
and Work Motivation
Abstract
A self-report questionnaire was administered to 125 adult Americans between the ages of 20 and
46 years, to examine the predictive values of substitutes of leadership, leadership behavior, and
work motivation in relation to job satisfaction. The results of independent regression analyses
revealed that all but subordinate substitutes were significant predictors of job satisfaction. In the
stepwise analysis, task substitutes, organizational substitutes, consideration leadership behavior,
initiating structure leadership behavior, and work motivation were significant and together
accounted for 54% of the total variance of job satisfaction. In both the stepwise and independent
analyses, work motivation (expectancy theory) and consideration leadership style affected levels
of job satisfaction more than any other variables. The study included an analysis of the aggregate
population by occupation. The individual results from assembly workers, middle managers, and
executives were used to examine the predictive values of substitutes of leadership, leadership
behavior, and work motivation in relation to job satisfaction.
Relationships between employee motivation, job satisfaction and corporate culture
As mentioned earlier, the theory behind research on the relationship between employee
motivation and job satisfaction has indicated that numerous variables of a personal, job and
organisational nature influence the level of motivation and job satisfaction that employees
experience in the workplace. Furthermore, as also noted previously, many of the personal, job
and organisational characteristics that influence employee motivation, exert a similar effect on
job satisfaction. This includes peoples needs with regard to their work and the work
environment, as well as the nature and content of their jobs, and the working conditions under
which they perform their daily tasks. Due to overlap in many cases, it is difficult for many of
these characteristics to be categorised in absolute terms as personal, job-related or organisational.
For example, the content of a persons job may be regarded as a personal attribute from the
perspective that the person needs meaningful and stimulating work in order to be satisfied and
motivated at work. However, from another perspective, job content may also be viewed as a
characteristic of the job that is impacting on employee motivation and job satisfaction. The
sections that follow discuss the relationships between job satisfaction and a number of
motivational (or personal) and job-related characteristics firstly, and organisational
characteristics (including corporate culture) secondly. The first section covers characteristics
that are both personal and job-related in nature, since they may be viewed from both angles, as
explained earlier. The second section explores organisational characteristics in this regard.
Through this discussion the nature of the three-way relationship between employee motivation,
job satisfaction and corporate culture comes into view.
Relationships between employee motivation and job satisfaction
The basis upon which relationships between employee motivation and job satisfaction and
corporate culture are observed is provided by the notion that peoples perceptions and behaviour
in the workplace are driven by a set of personal, innate needs (Maslow, 1968), and by their
perceptions of numerous job-related and organisation-related aspects (Du Toit, 1990; Gouws,
1995; Rothmann & Coetzer, 2002). From Vrooms (1964) expectancy theory perspective,
peoples motivational needs may be transformed into expectancies which drive behaviour at
work, if the behaviour is believed to lead to a certain outcome, and that particular outcome is
considered desirable. Observation of relationships between employee motivation and job
satisfaction in the workplace specifically is important, since several aspects of the work
environment serve as powerful motivators to employee performance (Herzberg, 1966), and
performance is inextricably linked to the success or failure of the organisation. Agreement on
several of the major research findings, which are discussed below, exists between researchers.
This is indicative of the availability of solid empirical research evidence that organisational
practice may be informed by. The aspects affecting peoples motivation at work may be
grouped into different dimensions, for example, their energy and dynamism, their synergy with
the work environment, as well as their intrinsic and extrinsic motives. These dimensions cover,
and are based on, the well-researched theoretical dimensions of employee motivation, which
were discussed in Chapter 2. For example, certain needs or motives experienced by employees
are indicative of their energy and dynamism while at work, such as their need for achievement
and power, their level of activity under pressure, and the extent to which they are motivated by a
competitive environment. Similarly, several employee needs and motives portray the nature and
level of synergy or harmony between their motivation profiles and their work environments.
These include, for example, the extent to which people are motivated by opportunities for
interaction at work, by praise and tangible recognition, by the synergy between their own and
the companys values and principles, by their need for job security, and by their need for
opportunities for continual personal growth and development. Employees intrinsic motivation
dimension is reflected by aspects 77such as their need for meaningful and stimulating work, for
flexible structures and procedures surrounding their tasks, and for an adequate level of autonomy
in their jobs. The extrinsic dimension of employees motivation profiles is represented by
aspects such as their need for financial reward, positive promotion prospects, and position and
status in the firm. A number of studies have shown that the extent to which people are
motivated by challenging tasks (Du Plessis, 2003; Maslow, 1968; Rothmann & Coetzer, 2002;
Stinson & Johnson, 1977) and by the sense that their abilities are being stretched, directly impact
on the job satisfaction they experience. According to goal-setting theory, people are motivated
by their internal intentions, objectives and goals (Spector, 2003). In a study aimed at assessing
the effect of perceived quality of work life on job satisfaction, Coster (1992), for example, found
a positive correlation between goal involvement in the execution of tasks and job satisfaction.
Corroborating results came from the work of Bellenger at al. (1984) and Strydom and Meyer
(2002), who rated the experience of success through goal attainment as the most important
source of job satisfaction. Although the sample in the latter study consisted of only 29 middle-
level managers, support for its findings was provided by the former study, where the sample was
considerably larger and more representative of a broader spectrum of employee categories.
These results are easily explained by the significant contribution that success and achievement
make towards a persons self-esteem (Beach, 1980), and which also reinforce his or her sense of
making a positive contribution towards the organisation. People with a need for achievement and
who experience success in this regard acquire a stronger belief and confidence in themselves,
which encourages them to contribute towards the goals and objectives of the organisation. A
need for achievement is often linked to a need for power in the workplace. Many employees are
motivated by opportunities for exercising authority, taking responsibility, negotiating, and being
in a position to influence others. This follows from the thinking of theorists like McClelland
(1987), who postulated through the theory of learned needs that achievement-oriented people
tend to be driven by the need for power more than others. A relationship between this
motivational 78dimension and job satisfaction has been shown by authors such as Becherer,
Morgan and Richard (1982), who demonstrated that the stronger the experience of responsibility,
or the ability to control and influence others, and therefore power, was in the workplace, the
higher the level of job satisfaction tended to be. Similar findings were produced by Coster
(1992), and by Hoole and Vermeulen (2003), who found that the authority to take action and to
exercise the accompanying responsibility, resulted in enhanced job satisfaction. Together these
findings lend credence to the concept that power is a significant predictor of job satisfaction in
those workers who are motivated by it. Certain needs or motives on the part of employees
determine the level of synergy between their motivational drive system and the characteristics of
their work environment. From the work of Cohen-Rosenthal and Cairnes (1991), Hoole and
Vermeulen (2003), Strydom and Meyer (2002), Van Vuuren (1990) and Visser et al. (1997) it
was deduced that many employees experience job satisfaction because their need for interaction
with others at work is being satisfied to some extent. Hoole and Vermeulen (2003) found, for
example, that pilots who enjoyed more social interaction with colleagues, staff and clients
experienced significantly higher levels of job satisfaction than those who did not have much
social contact with others at work. Social relations with clients and subordinates were also found
to elevate the job satisfaction of a small group of managers from a variety of industries (Strydom
& Meyer, 2002). An impressive finding in this regard was that, next to the experience of
success, the affiliation motive was found to be a significant contributor towards job satisfaction.
This result came from a large study (Visser et al., 1997) that measured several dimensions of job
satisfaction in the workplace. The needs theories (Alderfer, 1969; Herzberg, 1966; Maslow,
1968; McGregor, 1960) emphasise that people need and appreciate the support they receive
from those they share their work environment with, and that this support and interaction make
them feel much happier
at work. Once their more basic needs have been met, employees are often driven more strongly
by egostical needs (Maslow, 1968). Bellenger et al. (1984) and Guppy and Rick (1996) explored
peoples need for praise and other outward signs of recognition for their achievements. In their
investigation of characteristics of the work environment that may potentially impact on job
satisfaction, they concluded that recognition of performance is a significant predictor of job
satisfaction. Employees experience their jobs as far more pleasant and rewarding when they
receive appropriate recognition for their accomplishments (Beach, 1980; Van Vuuren, 1990).
The personal values people hold, compel many employees to uphold their ideals and conform to
high ethical and quality standards, even in the workplace. Hoole and Vermeulen (2003) found
that having to compromise these principles at work, for example by not adhering to adequate
safety standards, or producing work of inferior quality, diminishes the satisfaction experience of
such employees. Viswesvaran and Deshpande (1996) and Deshpande (1996) concurred with this
notion by showing that an instrumental climate, i.e. where people protected their own interests at
the expense of their personal principles, had a significantly negative effect on job satisfaction.
The need for security is one of the most basic needs, according to Alderfers (1969), Maslows
(1968), and McGregors (1960) theories. According to Davy, Kinicki and Scheck (1997) job
security refers to ones expectations about continuity in a job situation, and extends to concern
over loss of desirable job features such as promotion opportunities and working conditions. The
extent to which people are motivated by contextual factors, such as pleasant working conditions
and job security has a bearing on their job satisfaction. This was found by authors such as
Cohen-Rosenthal and Cairnes (1991), Davy et al. (1997), Hoole and Vermeulen (2003), and
Ritter and Anker (2002), who emphasised that job security is an important predictor of job
satisfaction. Moon (2000) also posited a relationship between these variables. Visser et al.
(1997) demonstrated that a lack of job security impacts negatively on job satisfaction. Their
result was based on the perceptions of a large group of marketing personnel from the South
African motor manufacturing industry, who linked their job security fears to a number of
external issues primarily, notably the prevailing political situation in the country and the related
future of the motor manufacturing industry. A number of internal practices were also linked to
their concerns, for example, appointments made from outside 80instead of internally, and the
perceived lack of promotion opportunities. Bellenger et al. (1984) and Johnie (1989) found that
job security was significantly less important to younger, and more senior employees than to
older, and more junior employees. They argued that older people may be less occupationally
mobile than younger ones, and therefore more dependent on their current jobs, and that they may
have
greater financial commitments too. More senior people may feel more confident about
alternative employment opportunities than more junior employees. The need theories (Alderfer,
1969; Maslow, 1968; McGregor, 1960) hold that selfactualisation is one of the powerful higher-
order needs that motivate people at work. In line with peoples need for achievement at work, it
is expected that their satisfaction will increase as more opportunities for further training and
development and acquisition of new skills present themselves. Coster (1992) confirmed this
notion through the finding that learning opportunities represented a substantial predictor of job
satisfaction. People place a high premium on their own personal development, especially since
it affirms and boosts their sense of self-worth, and satisfies their need for self-actualisation.
With reference to employees intrinsic motivation dimension, task enrichment theory holds that a
persons motivation is increased by his or her experience of meaningful and enriching job
content (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Porter et al., 1975; Tyagi, 1985). Job enrichment involves
the structuring of various elements of the job content, for example, increasing job
responsibilities, the variety of tasks, or employee autonomy (Hackman, 1977 in Perry & Porter,
1982). The literature reported a positive relationship between job satisfaction and the need of
employees to perform jobs that provide them with variety, interest and stimulation (Herzberg,
1987). Coster (1992), for example, found that for all hierarchical levels in the organisation,
stimulating job content had significant predictive value when it came to job satisfaction, and that
the related dimensions of problem-solving and mental effort also correlated positively with job
satisfaction. Strydom and Meyer (2002) confirmed this finding by stating that the content of the
work itself has a direct effect on job satisfaction, in that the more interesting the tasks an
employee has to perform are, the higher his or her level of job satisfaction is expected to be.
Kemp, Wall, Clegg 81and Cordery (1983) reported a significant and unambiguous effect of
meaningful work design on job satisfaction. Shepard (1973) found that workers in highly
specialised, repetitive jobs exhibited the lowest levels of job satisfaction among workers
performing a variety of jobs. Similarly, Stinson and Johnson (1977) found a consistent negative
relationship between task repetitiveness and job satisfaction, regardless of whether the
respondent exhibited a high need for achievement. In other words, even employees who are not
highly achievement-oriented, experience decreased job satisfaction when performing repetitive,
unstimulating work. Further confirmation of the linear relationship between job satisfaction and
employees need for stimulating activity at work came from Vercueil (1970) and Visser et al.
(1997), who found challenging work to be a significant determinant of job satisfaction. Both the
latter and the Stinson and Johnson (1977) studies incorporated large samplesthat spanned all
levels of the organisation. They also involved a wide variety of tasks across several levels of
complexity. These characteristics reinforce the generalisability and validity of the findings of
these studies. A number of research
projects that operationalised stimulating work as skill variety applied in the execution of tasks
(Becherer et al., 1982; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Jernigan et al., 2002) reported that jobs that require
the application of a wider array of skills from an employee enhance the level of job satisfaction
of that employee, and as such represents a powerful contributor towards job satisfaction. In
addition, depending on an employees satisfaction level, the skill variety component of the job
was found to significantly influence his or her affective commitment towards the organisation
(Jernigan et al., 2002). The latter finding should be interpreted and applied with caution, since
the entire sample of this study consisted of nursing personnel only, with the exclusion of other
industries. In general, the literature has indicated that an employees job content has an
important and pervasive effect on his or her experience of satisfaction at work.
Autonomous activity is an innate need experienced by many people (Beach, 1980; Coster, 1992;
Vercueil, 1970). A number of studies have found a significant relationship between job
satisfaction and the extent to which employees are motivated by being given scope for greater
self-regulation in their work. Several authors have demonstrated a significant positive
correlation between the level of 82autonomy a person experiences at work and his or her level
of job satisfaction (Agho, Mueller & Price, 1993; Becherer et al., 1982; Coster, 1992; Fried &
Ferris, 1987; Guppy & Rick, 1996; Jernigan et al., 2002; Orpen, 1994; Stinson & Johnson, 1977;
Tyagi, 1985; Weaver, 1988). Interesting auxiliary findings included that compromised
satisfaction with aspects relating to work autonomy exerted a significant impact on an
employees alienative commitment (or intention to withdraw support from the organisation)
towards the organisation (Jernigan et al., 2002). An employees perceived control over his or her
own work was also found to moderate the relationship between the levels of motivation and job
satisfaction experienced (Orpen, 1994). The literature showed that the nature of the relationship
between motivation and job satisfaction is determined to a large extent by peoples perceptions
of the amount of control they have over their own work. Together the results of the mentioned
studies allow adequate generalisability, as the samples were generally large, and represented a
multitude of occupations, industries and respondent demographics.
The extrinsic dimension of employee motivation is concerned with the premium placed on
material reward at work. Material, or extrinsic, rewards are those provided by the organisation,
that are tangible and visible to others (Bellenger et al., 1984). Research on issues surrounding
material reward for work performance reported a significant positive correlation between the
extent to which people are motivated by financial reward and their level of satisfaction with their
work (Agho et al., 1993; Bellenger et al., 1984; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Mol, 1990; Strydom
& Meyer, 2002; Thomson, 2003; Visser et al., 1997). However, Bellenger et al. (1984) added
that pay appeared to be significantly less important to more senior employees, who valued
higher-order rewards more highly, for example, recognition and respect from colleagues. As
with praise and recognition, material reward represents a visible means by which an employees
contribution towards the interests of the company, and as such also his or her value to the
organisation, may be affirmed. For many, it also represents affirmation of their self-worth, and
successful pursuit of their selfactualisation aspirations. 83Status also represents an avenue for
enhancing a sense of self-worth. Hoole and Vermeulen (2003) found that the extent to which
people are motivated by outward signs of position, status and due regard for rank, is positively
related to their experience of job satisfaction. Jernigan et al. (2002) agreed, and added that a low
level of satisfaction with an employees status at work is likely to lead to an increased level of
alienative commitment towards the organisation.
Many employees, especially highly achievement-orientated people, are strongly motivated by
having encouraging promotion prospects in their jobs, as these offer opportunity for
advancement in their careers and in the companies they work for (Bellenger et al., 1984; Sylvia
& Sylvia, 1986; Van Deventer, 1987). In this vein, it has been shown that promising promotion
prospects significantly enhance an employees job satisfaction (Coster, 1992; Hoole &
Vermeulen, 2003) and that negative promotion practices, for example, prolonged temporary
status, bring about a decrease in job satisfaction (Visser et al., 1997).
With the exception of the study by Visser et al. (1997) which followed a triangular approach, the
predominant research methodology employed in all of the relational studies mentioned in the
previous section was quantitative correlation analysis, supported by regression analysis in the
cases where any measure of predictive value in the particular relationship between employee
motivation and job satisfaction was pursued. The previous section reviewed a number of
selected studies on the relationship between employee motivation and job satisfaction. Several
major findings that were reported on repeatedly dominate the work done in this field. Overall it
appears that most employees are happy at work when they are able to realise their occupational
goals and ambitions, and when they can take control of their work environments, and often the
people in it too. By doing so, their needs for affirmation of their self-worth and value to the
company, as well as their ability to control their own destiny to some extent, are satisfied. At
the same time employees derive satisfaction from a sense of belonging to the community at work
and sharing important values and principles with them, and from growing and developing
alongside them for the betterment of 84themselves and the organisation as a whole. Employees
also need to be recognised for their achievements and contribution to the companys prosperity,
and to feel secure in their jobs in order to experience job satisfaction. Fears about losing their
jobs have an especially adverse effect on their satisfaction with their work situation. For many
employees it is also important to be able to uphold their personal principles and values at work.
Employees are intrinsically motivated by stimulating job content and the autonomy to organise it
as they see fit. Job satisfaction follows when these matters meet employees expectations. A
number of extrinsic motives such as financial reward, status and career advancement also
contribute towards an employees job satisfaction. From a certain perspective it is believed that
these represent nothing more than visible, and often tangible, evidence of an employees self-
worth and value, and his or her ability to earn well. In other words, a substantial relationship is
believed to exist between a workers need for extrinsic modes of reward and the need for
affirmation of achievement and power, which is often expressed more subtly.
The effects of personality, affectivity, and work commitment on motivation to improve
work through learning
Abstract
This study examined the degree to which the dimensions from the Five-Factor Model of
personality, affectivity, and work commitment (including work ethic, job involvement, affective
commitment, and continuance commitment) influenced motivation to improve work through
learning. Data were obtained from a nonrandom sample of 239 private-sector employees who
were participants of in-house training programs. The hypothesized causal relationships were
tested using structural equation modeling. Findings indicated that these dispositional effects were
significant antecedents of motivation to improve work through learning. Specifically, 57 percent
of the variance in motivation to improve work through learning was explained by positive
affectivity, work commitment, and extraversion.
Understanding Employee Motivation
Abstract
The study examined the ranked importance of motivational factors of employees The hand-
delivered descriptive survey addressed ten motivating factors in the context of employee
motivation theory. Findings suggest interesting work and good pay are key to higher employee
motivation. Carefully designed reward systems that include job enlargement, job enrichment,
promotions, internal and external stipends, monetary, and non-monetary compensation should be
considered.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to describe the importance of certain factors in motivating
employees at the Piketon Research and Extension Center and Enterprise Center. Specifically, the
study sought to describe the ranked importance of the following ten motivating factors: (a) job
security, (b) sympathetic help with personal problems, (c) personal loyalty to employees, (d)
interesting work, (e) good working conditions, (f) tactful discipline, (g) good wages, (h)
promotions and growth in the organization, (i) feeling of being in on things, and (j) full
appreciation of work done. A secondary purpose of the study was to compare the results of this
study with the study results from other populations.
Methodology
The research design for this study employed a descriptive survey method. The target population
of this study included employees at the Piketon Research and Extension Center and Enterprise
Center (centers). The sample size included all 25 employees of the target population. Twenty-
three of the 25 employees participated in the survey for a participation rate of 92%. The centers
are in Piketon, Ohio.
The mission of the Enterprise Center is to facilitate individual and community leader awareness
and provide assistance in preparing and accessing economic opportunities in southern Ohio. The
Enterprise Center has three programs: alternatives in agriculture, small business development,
and women's business development. The mission of the Piketon Research and Extension Center
is to conduct research and educational programs designed to enhance economic development in
southern Ohio. The Piketon Research and Extension Center has five programs: aquaculture,
community economic development, horticulture, forestry, and soil and water resources.
From a review of literature, a survey questionnaire was developed to collect data for the study
(Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991; Harpaz, 1990; Kovach, 1987). Data was collected through use of
a written questionnaire hand-delivered to participants. Questionnaires were filled out by
participants and returned to an intra-departmental mailbox. The questionnaire asked participants
to rank the importance of ten factors that motivated them in doing their work: 1=most important .
. . 10=least important. Face and content validity for the instrument were established using two
administrative and professional employees at The Ohio State University. The instrument was
pilot tested with three similarly situated employees within the university. As a result of the pilot
test, minor changes in word selection and instructions were made to the questionnaire.
Results and Discussion
The ranked order of motivating factors were: (a) interesting work, (b) good wages, (c) full
appreciation of work done, (d) job security, (e) good working conditions, (f) promotions and
growth in the organization, (g) feeling of being in on things, (h) personal loyalty to employees,
(i) tactful discipline, and (j) sympathetic help with personal problems.
A comparison of these results to Maslow's need-hierarchy theory provides some interesting
insight into employee motivation. The number one ranked motivator, interesting work, is a self-
actualizing factor. The number two ranked motivator, good wages, is a physiological factor. The
number three ranked motivator, full appreciation of work done, is an esteem factor. The number
four ranked motivator, job security, is a safety factor. Therefore, according to Maslow (1943), if
managers wish to address the most important motivational factor of Centers' employees,
interesting work, physiological, safety, social, and esteem factors must first be satisfied. If
managers wished to address the second most important motivational factor of centers'
employees, good pay, increased pay would suffice. Contrary to what Maslow's theory suggests,
the range of motivational factors are mixed in this study. Maslow's conclusions that lower level
motivational factors must be met before ascending to the next level were not confirmed by this
study.
The following example compares the highest ranked motivational factor (interesting work) to
Vroom's expectancy theory. Assume that a Centers employee just attended a staff meeting where
he/she learned a major emphasis would be placed on seeking additional external program funds.
Additionally, employees who are successful in securing funds will be given more opportunities
to explore their own research and extension interests (interesting work). Employees who do not
secure additional funds will be required to work on research and extension programs identified
by the director. The employee realizes that the more research he/she does regarding funding
sources and the more proposals he/she writes, the greater the likelihood he/she will receive
external funding.
Because the state legislature has not increased appropriations to the centers for the next two
years (funds for independent research and extension projects will be scaled back), the employee
sees a direct relationship between performance (obtaining external funds) and rewards
(independent research and Extension projects). Further, the employee went to work for the
centers, in part, because of the opportunity to conduct independent research and extension
projects. The employee will be motivated if he/she is successful in obtaining external funds and
given the opportunity to conduct independent research and extension projects. On the other hand,
motivation will be diminished if the employee is successful in obtaining external funds and the
director denies the request to conduct independent research and Extension projects.
The following example compares the third highest ranked motivational factor (full appreciation
of work done) to Adams's equity theory. If an employee at the centers feels that there is a lack of
appreciation for work done, as being too low relative to another employee, an inequity may exist
and the employee will be dis-motivated. Further, if all the employees at the centers feel that there
is a lack of appreciation for work done, inequity may exist. Adams (1965) stated employees will
attempt to restore equity through various means, some of which may be counter- productive to
organizational goals and objectives. For instance, employees who feel their work is not being
appreciated may work less or undervalue the work of other employees.
This final example compares the two highest motivational factors to Herzberg's two-factor
theory. The highest ranked motivator, interesting work, is a motivator factor. The second ranked
motivator, good wages is a hygiene factor. Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman (1959) stated that
to the degree that motivators are present in a job, motivation will occur. The absence of
motivators does not lead to dissatisfaction. Further, they stated that to the degree that hygienes
are absent from a job, dissatisfaction will occur. When present, hygienes prevent dissatisfaction,
but do not lead to satisfaction. In our example, the lack of interesting work (motivator) for the
centers' employees would not lead to dissatisfaction. Paying centers' employees lower wages
(hygiene) than what they believe to be fair may lead to job dissatisfaction. Conversely,
employees will be motivated when they are doing interesting work and but will not necessarily
be motivated by higher pay.
The discussion above, about the ranked importance of motivational factors as related to
motivational theory, is only part of the picture. The other part is how these rankings compare
with related research. A study of industrial employees, conducted by Kovach (1987), yielded the
following ranked order of motivational factors: (a) interesting work, (b) full appreciation of work
done, and (c) feeling of being in on things. Another study of employees, conducted by Harpaz
(1990), yielded the following ranked order of motivational factors: (a) interesting work, (b) good
wages, and (c) job security.
In this study and the two cited above, interesting work ranked as the most important motivational
factor. Pay was not ranked as one of the most important motivational factors by Kovach (1987),
but was ranked second in this research and by Harpaz (1990). Full appreciation of work done
was not ranked as one of the most important motivational factors by Harpaz (1990), but was
ranked second in this research and by Kovach (1987). The discrepancies in these research
findings supports the idea that what motivates employees differs given the context in which the
employee works. What is clear, however, is that employees rank interesting work as the most
important motivational factor.
KEY LEARNING
This study helped me in understanding the relationship between motivation, job
satisfaction and leading towards better performance.
It made me enlighted that how it is important to understand employee motivation and
why it is important to be understood in an organized setup.
It also explained how miss fits in the organisation can be corrected if there is motivation
and people are satisfied in there job.
CONCULSION:
This study examines the impact of employee motivation on job satisfication and hence leading to
a enhanced performance. This study pays emphasizes on importance of employee motivation in
the organization and how job satisfication is linked with their inner motivation in turn leading to
better performance in their respective areas.
REFRENCES:
1. www.google.com
2. Google Scholar Research papers
3. Employee Motivation - advantage, benefits, cost, What motivates?, Motivation
methods http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Di-Eq/Employee-
Motivation.html#b#ixzz1d7ctun1Y
4. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/92/1/93/
5. http://www.gu.edu.pk/GUJR/PDF/pdf%20dec%202006/No.10-Sher%20Kamal-
Relationship%20between%20Employee.pdf