Final Paper (EFFECT OF MOTIVATION ON PERFORMANCE & JOB SATISFACTION )

Uttara University

Principles OfManagement

December 14

2015Submitted By - Kapil Dev Datta I.D No - M21531141004

Submitted To - Dr. Md. Mayenul Islam

Topic:Effect Of Motivation On Performance & Job Satisfaction

22

Effect Of Motivation On Performance & Job Satisfaction

Abstract :

Employers are faced with the task of motivating employees to get the best performance and creating high job satisfaction among their organizations staff. When the employer understands the effects of motivation on performance and job satisfaction in the workplace, though, the investment in employee-related policies can be justified. The purpose of any motivation program is to motivate the organization’s employees to enable them work effectively. However, motivating employees is not an easy thing as what motivates employees differs among people. This paper intended to establish a set of factors that can motivate employees of a organization and to establish the policy implications of these factors for managing employees of the organization. Managers must ensure that the organizations have a competent personnel that is capable to handle this task.

This takes us to the problem question of this research “why is not a sufficient motivation for high performance?” This therefore establishes the fact that money is for high performance but there is need to look at other aspects of motivation which is not necessarily money. Five theories were taken into consideration to give an explanation to the question raised in the problem formulation. These theories include: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y , McClelland’s learned needs theory, Herzberg two factor theory, and Vroom’s expectancy theory. Therefore, it has been proved that, to motivate workers sufficiently with the relevance incentives as the only alternative towards workers performance to achieve desire goal and objectives of the organization. On the basis of these findings, implications of the findings for future study were highlighted. A positive relationship, as measured by possess annual salary progression, was found between affiliation motivation and performance. The results suggest that affiliation motivation, work performance & job satisfaction is positively related.

And use the findings of market research of a organizations, in particular, it can be guided in terms of organization attitudes under managerial influence. In present study case investigates the effect of motivation in performance and job satisfaction, motivation has been treated as a dependent variable on the other-hand performance and job satisfaction as an independent variable. The case study shows that there is a positive association between motivation, work performance and job satisfaction of employees. In conclusion, managers should know that employees are motivated by monetary rewards. It is recommended that there is need for managers to have a comprehensive motivation scheme in all aspects of an organization as this is directly proportional to the output of the employees.

Introduction:

Managers within companies or organizations are primarily responsible to ensure the tasks or job is done through employees in the right way. To achieve this, these managers must ensure that they have a competent personnel department for the recruitment of the best employees that are capable to do the job. For the company to optimize employee’s performance there is need for the employees to be sufficiently motivated.

Performance is viewed as the implementation of an action or one’s ability. Good performance is also related with achieving the quality, quantity, co-operation, dependability and creativity. According to Churchill, Ford and Walker, (1987), the determinants of performance are personal, organizational, environmental, motivation, skill level, aptitudes and role perceptions. Moreover, Vroom (1964) explained that motivational components are typically based on

33


expectancy theory, which states that productivity increases when the level of motivation is increased. Motivation is considered as a predictor of job performance. The person with high motivation level will succeed. The employee’s talent to perform the job outstandingly once the levels of motivation increased. This study is intended to promote a better theoretical understanding and recognition of the complexities associated with overall job performance. Moreover, it can contribute significantly towards future theoretical advancements in public services models.

Worker’s performance and job satisfaction on the job is studied by different lines of inquiry and in different disciplines. However, cross-referencing is occasional, and the results are not always consistent. In particular, empirical studies about motivation on performance and job satisfaction produce results puzzling for economic theory, which instead concentrates on workers’ job effort and utility. Effort towards developing a motivated workforce for the purpose of improving productivity remains the single most crucial function of heads of institutions in recent times. Why? The reason is provided by Kreisman (2002) who argues that the most valuable and volatile asset of any institution is a well-motivated and stable workforce which is competent, dedicated and productive. Interestingly, what motivates employees’ changes constantly?

All organizations want to be successful, even in current environment which is highly competitive. Therefore, companies irrespective of size and market strive to retain the best employees, acknowledging their important role and influence on organizational effectiveness. In order to overcome these challenges, companies should create a strong and positive relationship with its employees and direct them towards task fulfillment.

Therefore, it is essential for a manager to understand what really motives employees, without making just an assumption. Thus, managers can increase their effectiveness by getting a better grasp on the real needs of the employees.

Motivation theory can help us to consider the different investments which can be made in people. Investment in workers through motivational measures are made today with the hope of future benefits for an organization. “In a world characterised by competition, customer focus and the need for speed and flexibility, in order to get the results you want, you still have to depend on your people to carry the day” (Storey, 2001:9). This therefore makes it a necessity to employ “talented individuals, who need to be developed, motivated, rewarded and provided with the organizational cultures and work processes that will make them to be successful” (Hay group, 2000 in Storey, 2001: 9).

Motivation is the key of a successful organization to maintain the continuity of the work in a powerful manner and help organizations to survive. Motivation is finding a need inside the employees and help to achieve it in a smooth process. Motivating the staff leads to broaden their skill to meet the organizational demands. Motivation drives the human beings to reach their goals and organization goals through every challenge and constraint they face in their workplace; considering it as an advantage to go ahead in the direction they have put for themselves. The need of achievement always results in a desire to do extra effort to have something done better, and have the desire for success. The manager should motivate the employees to get things done through them without asking them what to do. It should be borne in mind that motivation is not a magic show that can perform miracles. There is no secret or trick to motivate people to do good work. In simple words, authors tried identifying the effect of motivation on performance & job satisfaction.

44


Keywords: Motivation, Employee Performance, Job Satisfaction, Techniques , Motivation Theories.

Objectives:

The main objective of this study is to find the relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction. Other objectives are listed follow.

• What is the level of motivation of employee ?• What is the level of job satisfaction of employee ?• Determine the effect of motivation regarding job satisfaction.

Review of Literature :

One of first traditional approaches to motivation was the fear and punishment philosophy. A living example of the fear-punishment tactic lies in the construction of pyramids in Egypt where workers were abiding to the „principles‟. Under „principles‟ existed a limited span of control, instant subdivision in allocating tasks and full dependence of subordinates. At that time, this concept was a great success in organizations and a motivating factor.

Along with perception, personality, attitudes, and learning, motivation is a veryimportant part of understanding behavior. Luthan (1998) asserts that motivation should not be thought of as the only explanation of behavior, since it interacts with and acts in conjunction with other mediating processes and with the environment. Luthan stress that, like the other cognitive process, motivation cannot be seen. All that can be seen is behavior, and this should not be equated with causes of behavior. While recognizing the central role of motivation, Evans (1998) states that many recent theories of organizational behavior find it important for the field to re-emphasize behavior. Definitions of motivation abound. One thing these definitions have in common is the inclusion of words such as "desire", "want", "wishes", "aim", "goals", "needs", and" incentives". Luthan (1998) defines motivation as, “a process that starts with a physiological deficiency or need that activates a behavior or a drive that is aimed at a goal incentive”. Therefore, the key to understanding the process of motivation lies in the meaning of, and relationship among, needs, drives, and incentives. Relative to this, Minner, Ebrahimi, and Watchel, (1995) state that in a system sense, motivation consists of these three interacting and interdependent elements, i.e., needs, drives, and incentives.

“Motivation refers to the degree of readiness of an organism to pursue some designated goal, and implies the determination of the nature and locus of the forces inducing the degree of readiness.” (Heyel, 1982 p.597)

“As the willingness to exert high levels of effort to reach organizational goals as conditioned by that effort‟s ability to satisfy some individual need.” (Robbins and Coulter, 1999 p.26).

Crites (1985) has aptly distinguished between job satisfaction and job attitudes. Heobserves, If it is some specific aspect of the job such as duties and tasks or working conditions, then the concept which is defined would be job attitudes.. If it is the overall job in which the individual is presently employed, then the concept would be job satisfaction.

According to Keith Davis and John W. Newstrom (2002), Job Satisfaction is a set offavorable or unfavorable feelings and emotions with which employees view their work. It is an affective attitude a feeling of relative like or dislike towards something. Toby Marshall Egan,

55


Baiyin Yang, Kenneth R. Bartlett (2004) examined the effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. 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.

According to research done by T. A. Judge and R. Ilies (2004) on Job Satisfaction, People who tend to be positive and cheerful most of the time do indeed tend to express higher job Satisfaction than ones who tend to be Down and Gloomy.

They also added that Job Satisfaction depends primarily on the match between the outcomes individual value in their jobs and their perceptions about the availability of such outcomes-especially for those facets of the job that are highly valued. W.R. Boswell, J.W. Boudreau and J. Tichy (2005) have given the concept of Honeymoon effect and Hangover Effect in relation to Job Satisfaction.

According to them, Honeymoon effect is the tendency to enjoy high level of satisfaction on new jobs that they have taken in response to dissatisfaction with their old jobs, while hangover effect is the tendency for people’s level of satisfaction to drop over time from when a position is brand new to when one gains more experience with it. Donald P. Moynihan and Sanjay K. Pandey (2007) worked over the topic. Finding Workable Levers over Work Motivation.: Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment. The authors examine the effect of individual attributes, job characteristics, and organizational variables on three aspects of work motivation: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement. They find that managers have varying degrees of influence over these different aspects of work motivation, with greatest influence over job satisfaction and least influence over job involvement. A number of variables are important for work motivation, including public service motivation, advancement opportunities, role clarity; job routine and group culture. Motivation basically has two dimensions(Anonymous, 2010),one being. making employees work better, more efficiently and effectively. from the point of view of managers, the other being. Enabling employees to do their jobs in the best way with enjoyment and desire. from the point of view of employees.

Motivation and Job Satisfaction has been considered to be affected by economic variablesand this fact cannot be denied but are not sufficient enough to have a prolonged effect. However, it is seen that appeal to the motivating economic tools and expecting from them more than needed does not seem to result in success very much. Therefore, in planning rewarding, encouraging economic tools should be employed in accordance with employees’ needs. In fact, there are ways of increasing employees’ work motivation and satisfaction other than monetary tools (Moncrief, 2010). Yasemin Oraman (2011), worked to evaluate the effective dynamics of work motivation and job satisfaction of employees. It analyzes the effectiveness of psycho-social, economic, organizational and managerial tools over individuals’ motivation in terms of maintaining the motivation and job satisfaction of the employees in the business. He came out with the conclusions that economics tools by employee are positively and significantly related to the level of motivation increase perceived by the employee. Second regression model plays an important role in determining the level of job satisfaction except economic and psychosocial tools and has a positive effect on increasing employee motivation with implementations carried out to increase employee satisfaction at work.

66


Hypothesis:

1. There is no significant difference between the Mean Motivation Score of the high and low satisfied employees.

2. Motivation remains unaffected of the age of the employees.3. There is no significant relationship between Motivation and the Length of Service of

the employees.

Research design:

In the present study, Motivation has been treated as a dependent and Job Satisfaction as an independent variable. Mathematically, relationship between Motivation and Job Satisfaction is as below:

M = f (JS)’M’ stands for Motivation and ’JS’ stands for Job Satisfaction

Then independent variable (Job Satisfaction) has been split into two groups: - high and low with reference to the median of the variables scores in question. Above the median score is representing high Job Satisfaction and below median score is low Job Satisfaction of the employees.

Thereafter, the mean motivational score of the highly satisfied employees has been compared with the mean motivational score of the low satisfied employees with a view to explore the impact of satisfaction on motivation.

Data collection:

As the research is descriptive in nature the study relies on primary data collected from r employees, working in an organization, Saharanpur. Primary data has been collected bythe researcher through standard structured questionnaires.

Tool(s):

Two questionnaires one for motivation and other for job satisfaction have been used. Both the questionnaires are standard questionnaires and have passed the reliability test. Each questionnaire consists of 10 questions and all are 5-point likert scale based questions and the responder has to tick any one from the 5-point responses ranging from 1 to5.Response 5 gets 5 marks and 1 gets 1 mark. Thus each individuals score will range from amaximum of 50 to a minimum of 10 in both the cases. We will consider 30 as a median scoreand any score at 30 or above will be considered as motivating and satisfying and below it asnon-motivating and non-satisfying.

Sample: The researcher has collected data from 45 white collar employees i.e., supervisorand above out of a population of 180 employees. The respondents belonged to different age group (25-35yrs, 36-45yrs and 45 and above) and with different experience level (1-10yrs, 11-20yrs and 20yrs and above)through Stratified Convenience Sampling.

77


Sample Profile:

Table 1: Age-wise distribution of the sample respondents

Age (Years) (Years) No. of Employees

Percentage (%)

Below 30 12 26.630-45 24 53.4Above 45 9 20

The profile shows that majority of employees i.e., 53.4% belong to the age group of 35 to 45. It is apparent from Table No. 1 that 80% of the employees are below 45 years of age which implies that most of the respondents white color employees belong to relatively younger group.

Table 2 Length of service-wise distribution of respondents

The Table 2 gives an idea about the distribution of the employees on the basis of their years of experience in the organization. It can be inferred from the above table that majority of the employees (51.2%) fall under the category of 10 to 20 years of experience. It implies that the organization consists mostly of rich in experience employees. If we combine the above percentage with the employees who are with 21 years and above experience it amounts to 75.6% of employees, this further substantiates the richness of the experience of the employees.

Data Analysis :

Table 3 No. of employees with high and low level of Motivation and Job Satisfaction:

(Note: respondents scoring 30 and above have been considered as highly job satisfied and motivated)

It can be inferred from Table 3 that more than 80% of the employees belong to the group of highly satisfied and motivated employees. This inference also tells us that most of the factors

88


responsible for satisfaction and motivation are present in the organization, while to further substantiate this we will go for further statistical analysis.

Table 4 Motivation Scores of workers in the high and low Job Satisfaction Groups: (Median = 30)

In Table 4, we bifurcated the motivational scores of the employees belonging to the High and Low Job Satisfaction groups and thereafter the mean motivational scores of high and lowsatisfied groups were calculated. For testing the significance of the difference between the mean scores obtained we calculated the Z-Static at 95% confidence level and alpha=.05 whichcame out to be 8.759528. We compared this with the critical Z value and found it to be much greater and hence we rejected our first null hypothesis.

The analysis provides ample evidence to infer that: there is a significant difference between the Mean Motivation Score of the high and low satisfied employees.

The Correlation Coefficient :

To understand the extent and the nature of relationship between the variables i.e., Motivation and Job Satisfaction the Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation was calculated, we was found to be r = 0.822134, it is evident from the Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation that there is a high degree of positive correlation between the Motivation and Job Satisfaction. It indicates that the motivation of employees increases with the increase in the Job Satisfaction level of the employees and vice-versa. This strong positive correlation between the two variables is alsoevident from the graph shown in the figure 1. Figure1 Graphical representation of the correlation between Motivation and Satisfaction

99


Testing the Significance of a Correlation :

Further, to ascertain whether the observed correlation between motivation and Job satisfaction is merely due to chance or the correlation is a real one statistical significance was tested by using the value table. It was found that the critical value given in the value table was 0.374, whereas the correlation between the two values was 0.822134 which was much higher than the critical value given in the table. Therefore, it may be inferred safely that the correlation between the variables under study is statistically significant and it is a real one and not merely because of chance.

Coefficient of Determination :

In our case r = 0.822134 thus r2 = 0.68 is 68% Thus 68% of the variation in the value ofJob Satisfaction (Y) is accountable to Motivation (X) in this case and the rest may bedepending on some other factors which are not the part of the study so are considerer here to beout of scope. As we know that correlation only tells us that there is a relationship between two or more variables and it does not tells us the kind of relationship that exists. So to further substantiate our results let us find the Regression between the two variables understudy and find what kind of relationship exists. Regression analysis As the coefficient of correlation tells only that there is a relationship between the two variables but it does not clarify the kind of relationship existing between the two variables. Therefore, regression analysis wascarried out to examine the kind of relationship existing between Motivation and Job Satisfaction.

The functional relationship between the two variables under study may be understoodwith the help of the line of regression ofmotivation on Job Satisfaction.

M = a + bJ(M = Motivation and J = Job Satisfaction while ’a’ and ’b’ are constants)

We need to find out the values of ’a’ and ’b’ and put it in the above equation to establish a functional relationship between the two variables. The final regression equation comes out to be:

M = 10.95 + 0.72J

Methodology :

In this section the methodology followed by the researcher is for the subsequent section ispresented. With a view to achieving the objectives set for the study, the researcher has used combination of exploratory and descriptive research. The data used in this chapter are obtained from primary sources. The data (required for this chapter) are obtained by administering questionnaire to selected employees. The researcher based on his convenience and judgment has chosen simple random sampling method. For collecting the data Interview method has been used.

1010


Definition Of Motivation :

Walker (1980) stated that studies over the years have shown little relationship between measures of job satisfaction and performance outputs. Highly satisfied workers may be poor performers, whereas highly dissatisfied workers may be good performers. Several variables influence the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance, although no direct causal relationships between these have been identified as yet. However, it appears that motivation might account for much of the link between an employee’s job satisfaction and job performance. In this sense, Walker regarded it as meaningful to view motivation as a summary factor, which Campbell and Pritchard (1976, p.78) defined as “a label for the determinants of the choice to initiate effort on a certain task, the choice to expend a certain amount of effort, and the choice to persist in expending effort over a period of time”. Motivation, therefore, closes the satisfaction-performance loop, and has to do with a set of interrelated factors that explain an individual’s behavior, holding constant the variables controlled or influenced by management, as well as by individual skills, abilities and knowledge (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976).

Motivation refers to “the reasons underlying behavior” (Guay et al., 2010, p. 712). Paraphrasing Gredler, Broussard and Garrison (2004) broadly define motivation as “the attribute that moves us to do or not to do something” (p. 106). Intrinsic motivation is motivation that is animated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure. As Deci et al. (1999) observe, “intrinsic motivation energizes and sustains activities through the spontaneous satisfactions inherent in effective volitional action. It is manifest in behaviors such as play, exploration, and challenge seeking that people often do for external rewards” (p. 658). Internal and external factors that stimulate desire and energy in people to be continually interested and committed to a job, role or subject, or to make an effort to attain a goal.

Researchers often contrast intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation, which is motivation governed by reinforcement contingencies. Traditionally, educators consider intrinsic motivation to be more desirable and to result in better learning outcomes than extrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999).

Motivation results from the interaction of both conscious and unconscious factors such as the (1) intensity of desire or need, (2) incentive or reward value of the goal, and (3) expectations of the individual and of his or her peers. These factors are the reasons one has for behaving a certain way. An example is a student that spends extra time studying for a test because he or she wants a better grade in the class.

Motivation involves a constellation of beliefs, perceptions, values, interests, and actions that are all closely related. As a result, various approaches to motivation can focus on cognitive behaviors (such as monitoring and strategy use), non-cognitive aspects (such as perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes), or both. For example, Gottfried (1990) defines academic motivation as “enjoyment of school learning characterized by a mastery orientation; curiosity; persistence; task-endogeny and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks” (p. 525). On the other hand, Turner (1995) considers motivation to be synonymous with cognitive engagement, which he defines as “voluntary uses of high-level self-regulated learning strategies, such as paying attention, connection, planning, and monitoring” (p. 413).

According to Pinder (1998 in Ambrose & Kulik, 1999) work motivation may be regarded as a set of internal and external forces that initiate work-related behavior, and determine its form, direction, intensity and duration. The concept relates to the work context specifically, and

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/external-factors.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/class.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/grade.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/want.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/test.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/spend.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/individual.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/expectation.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/value.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/reward.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/incentive.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/need.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/factor.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/result.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/goal.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/role.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/job.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/energy.html

1111


includes the influence on work behavior of both environmental forces, and those inherent in the person. In the workplace, work motivation presents as an invisible, personal and hypothetical construct that manifests itself in the form of observable, and therefore measurable, behaviors.

Sempane, Rieger and Roodt (2002) hold that job satisfaction relates to people’s own evaluation of their jobs against those issues that are important to them. Since emotions and feelings are involved in such assessments, employees’ levels of job satisfaction may impact significantly on their personal, social and work lives, and as such, also influence their behavior at work.

Some authors take a slightly more intrinsically oriented stance, with work characteristics playing a lesser role. Spectra (2003) saw motivation as an internal state that induces a person to engage in particular behaviors, and held that motivation may be viewed from two angles. On the one hand, motivation encompasses direction, where a particular behavior is selected from a choice of behaviors, intensity, referring to the amount of effort put into a task, and persistence, which denotes the person’s continuing engagement in the selected behavior. On the other hand, motivation is also concerned with a desire to achieve a certain goal, which derives from the particular individual’s own needs and desires. Petri (1996) also regarded motivation as the forces acting on or within a person to initiate and direct behavior. It explains differences in intensity of behavior, and why behavior occurs in one situation, but not in another. The concept of motivation is therefore particularly useful in its ability to increase general understanding and prediction of behavior. Gouws (1995) defined motivation as an inner wish or urge that originates with an individual, either consciously or unconsciously, to complete a task successfully because it is enjoyable, and not necessarily for what will be received in return.

As already mentioned, the concept of motivation is very important in terms of organizational effectiveness, as it constitutes the crucial link between employee job satisfaction and employee performance, which in turn determines organizational profitability and success. In their quest to maintain an optimally motivated workforce, management’s focus should therefore be on attending to the myriad of job-specific, as well as organizational factors which have been shown to contribute towards employee job satisfaction and motivation. One such factor, which resides on organizational level, is organizational or corporate culture. This concept is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

How motivation work :

Motivation can be induced by the employer or reside within the employee. Employees have higher levels of motivation when they perceive that management cares about their welfare, when they are involved in the management process, and when the management labor environment is positive.

Motivation is a basic psychological process. A recent data-based comprehensive analysis concluded that competitiveness problems appear to be largely motivational in nature (Mine, Ebrahimi, and Wachtel, 1995).

Control stifles motivation while involvement creates a more productive environment. If the workers feel they are being treated fairly and with respect, this attitude will develop and guide their behavior in a positive direction. To be motivated, they must be excited about and interested in their jobs. Activities that can gain interest on the part of workers include employee participation committees, task force efforts, and training programs, opportunities for outside

1212


education, newsletters, contests, and congratulatory messages from management. The relationship between motivation and productivity can be summarized as that

productivity is directly linked to motivation, and motivation is, in turn, dependent on productivity. Suitable motivation of labour can be hypothesized as a key contributor to maximizing workers productivity. The motivation concept is generally defined as a composition of powers and mechanisms which help to direct human behavior in a desired manner, or with a more specific context it is described as the all convincing and encouraging actions which help workers fulfill their tasks willingly and to come closer to project objectives.

Therefore, successful work performance can arise from a variety of motives. Motivation of the labour force is of paramount importance because the quality of human performance at the workplace depends largely upon motivation. That is, higher motivation brings higher productivity. Even the smallest action that is positive or negative can have an effect on workers attitude and motivation. The motivation, especially monetary rather than moral, has proven its influence on the productivity of workers, and the methods of motivating personnel to promote productivity have been demonstrated by Khan (1993) through applications of different human relations theories of motivation. Contemporary research and observations show that well motivated employees are more productive and creative towards achieving company or organizational goals. On the other hand less motivated employees are less performance and tend to divert from attaining organizational goals. Motivation as incentive systems are fundamental to developing capacities and to translating developed capacities into better performance.

Along with perception, personality, attitudes, and learning, motivation is a very important element of behavior. Nevertheless, motivation is not the only explanation of behavior. It interacts with and acts in conjunction with other cognitive processes. Motivating is the management process of influencing behavior based on the knowledge of what make people tick (Luthans, 1998). Motivation and motivating both deal with the range of conscious human behavior somewhere between two extremes:

• reflex actions such as a sneeze or flutter of the eyelids; and• learned habits such as brushing one's teeth or handwriting style (Wallace and Szilag 1982: 53).Luthans (1998) asserts that motivation is the process that arouses, energizes, directs, and

sustains behavior and performance. That is, it is the process of stimulating people to action and to achieve a desired task. One way of stimulating people is to employ effective motivation, which makes workers more satisfied with and committed to their jobs.

Motivational techniques:

Perhaps one of the most effective ways of motivating a team is to ensure that they understand and appreciate the aims of an organization and are supported by their managers in working towards the achievement of those aims. There are a range of motivational techniques that can be used to improve productivity, reduce workplace stress and increase self-confidence. There are a number of ways of inspiring and motivating a team; they are as follows.

1313


Salary, Wages and Conditions of Service :

To use salaries as a motivator effectively, personnel managers must consider four major components of a salary structures. These are the job rate, which relates to the importance the organization attaches to each job; payment, which encourages workers or groups by rewarding them according to their performance; personal or special allowances, associated with factors such as scarcity of particular skills or certain categories of information professionals or librarians, or with long service; and fringe benefits such as holidays with pay, pensions, and so on. It is also important to ensure that the prevailing pay in other library or information establishments is taken into consideration in determining the pay structure of their organization.

Money:

Akintoye (2000) asserts that money remains the most significant motivational strategy. As far back as 1911, Frederick Taylor and his scientific management associate described money as the most important factor in motivating the industrial workers to achieve greater productivity. Taylor advocated the establishment of incentive wage systems as a means of stimulating workers to higher performance, commitment, and eventually satisfaction. Money possesses significant motivating power in as much as it symbolizes intangible goals like security, power, prestige, and a feeling of accomplishment and success. Katz, in Sinclair, et al. (2005) demonstrates the motivational power of money through the process of job choice. He explains that money has the power to attract, retain, and motivate individuals towards higher performance. For instance, if a information professional has another job offer which has identical job characteristics with his current job, but greater financial reward, that worker would in all probability be motivated to accept the new job offer. Banjoko (1996) states that many managers use money to reward or punish workers. This is done through the process of rewarding employees for higher productivity by instilling fear of loss of job (e.g., premature retirement due to poor performance). The desire to be promoted and earn enhanced pay may also motivate employees.

Training :

No matter how automated an organization or a library may be, high productivity depends on the level of motivation and the effectiveness of the workforce. Staff training is an indispensable strategy for motivating workers. The organization must have good training programme. People can be taught to become more motivated by showing them how to deconstruct tasks and challenges, and how to feel less intimidated by their job roles. Demonstrating to them how to cope in the workplace can lead directly to improved motivation (Daniel, 2001).

1414


Targets, rewards and incentives :

It is generally accepted that having targets to work towards, as long as they are realistic, is one of the most effective ways of improving performance. Hitting targets improves morale and self-confidence but remember that those who consistently underachieve will end up feeling de-motivated. Target achievement can be rewarded not only with financial incentives but perhaps with the offer of increased responsibility or even promotion. Different people are motivated by different things so it is important to make sure that you offer the right incentives to the right member of the team. Motivating a team is always easier if you fully understand that they may not necessarily be motivated by the same things as you. The most effective teams are those that feel valued and supported but also feel that they are progressing and developing through the completion of challenging tasks. If a team understands company’s objectives, they are much more likely to want to work harder towards their achievement. Also, most people tend to respond well to being given the opportunity to make decisions and take on additional responsibilities. Whatever motivational techniques work the best, it is always important to ensure that your team feels it is making a valuable and positive contribution (Koontz and Weihrich, 1990; Daniel, 2001; Kelly, 2010).

Encouraging participation :

Employees can contribute in a number of decisions that affect them: setting work goals, choosing their own benefits package, solving productivity and quality problems, and the like. This can increase employees‟ productivity, commitments to work goals, motivation and job satisfaction (Robbins, 1998). It is also a means of recognition. It appeals to the need for affiliation and acceptance. Above all, it gives people a sense of accomplishment, but encouraging participation should not mean that the managers weaken their positions. Although they encourage participation of subordinates on matters with which they can help, and although they listen carefully on matters requiring their decision they must decide themselves. The best subordinates ever have respect for a weak superior (Koontz and Weihrich, 1990).

Information Availability and Communication :

One way managers can stimulate motivation is to give relevant information on the consequences of their actions on others (Olajide, 2000). To this researcher it seems that there is no known organization in which people do not usually feel there should be improvement in the way departments communicate, cooperate, and collaborate with one another. Information availability brings to bear a powerful peer pressure, where two or more people running together will run faster than when running alone or running without awareness of the pace of the other runners. By sharing information, subordinates compete with one another.

Studies on work motivation seem to confirm that it improves workers' performance and satisfaction. For example, Brown and Shepherd (1997) examine the characteristics of the work of teacher-librarians in four major categories: knowledge base, technical skills, values, and beliefs.

1515


He reports that they will succeed in meeting this challenge only if they are motivated by deeply-held values and beliefs regarding the development of a shared vision. Vinokur, Jayarantne, and Chess (1994) examine agency-influenced work and employment conditions, and assess their impact on social workers' job satisfaction. Some motivational issues were salary, fringe benefits, job security, physical surroundings, and safety. Certain environmental and motivational factors are predictors of job satisfaction.

While Colvin (1998) shows that financial incentives will get people to do more of what they are doing, Silverthrone (1996) investigates motivation and managerial styles in the private and public sector. The results indicate that there is a little difference between the motivational needs of public and private sector employees, managers, and non-managers.

Theories Of Motivation :

Drive Reduction Theories :

Drive reduction theories of motivation suggest that people act in order to reduce needs and maintain a constant physiological state. For example, people eat in order to reduce their need for food. The idea of homeostasis is central to drive reduction theories. Homeostasis is the maintenance of a state of physiological equilibrium.

Drive reduction theories fail to explain several aspects of motivation:

• People sometimes aren’t motivated by internal needs.Example: Some people fast for long periods for political causes, despite feeling extreme hunger.

• Sometimes, people continue being motivated even when they have satisfied internal needs.Example: People sometimes eat even when they don’t feel hungry.

• People are often motivated by external incentives as well as internal needs.Example: If a person is hungry, he or she may choose to eat a salad rather than a cheeseburger because he or she wants to be slimmer.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation:

A motivation may be intrinsic, extrinsic, or both. Intrinsic motivation is the motivation to act for the sake of the activity alone. For example, people have intrinsic motivation to write poetry if they do it simply because they enjoy it. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is the motivation to act for external rewards. For example, people have extrinsic motivation to write if they do so in the hopes of getting published, being famous, or making money.

Incentives:

An incentive is an environmental stimulus that pulls people to act in a particular way.

1616


Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs :

One of the most often-quoted motivation theories is that of Abraham Maslow, which he introduced in 1943 (Van Niekerk, 1987), the psychologist Abraham Maslow suggested that people are motivated by a hierarchy of needs:

• First, most basic level: physiological needs, such as the need for food, water, safety, and security.

• Second level: needs for social interaction, such as the need to belong.• Third level: needs for esteem, which include the need for respect from oneself and others.• Fourth level: needs for self-actualization, or realizing one’s full potential.

Maslow believed people pay attention to higher needs only when lower needs are satisfied.

The Hierarchy needs theory Of Maslow

Updated version of Maslow’s Hierarchy needs theory

1717


Herzberg’s two-factor theory:

Frederick Herzberg’s well-known and controversial theory of motivation was postulated in 1954, and developed from his work to determine the attitude of workers towards their jobs (Gouws, 1995). As such, it was originally intended to be a job satisfaction theory, but over time it was its motivational aspects that attracted most attention (Baron et al., 2002). Beach (1980) was of the opinion that this theory constitutes more of a work motivation than general human motivation theory.

The basic assumption of Herzberg’s theory is that motivation originates from the job itself, and not from other external characteristics, and that those factors leading to job satisfaction (‘motivators’) are separate and distinct from those leading to job dissatisfaction (‘hygiene/maintenance’ factors) (Herzberg, 1966). The hygiene factors, which may be equated with Maslow’s lower order needs, are placed along a continuum, from a state of dissatisfaction, to no dissatisfaction. These factors involve circumstances surrounding the task which do not lead to job satisfaction, but prevent dissatisfaction, if maintained adequately. Examples of these maintenance factors include the level of supervision, job status, work circumstances, service conditions, remuneration and interpersonal relationships (Herzberg, 1966).

Motivators, on the other hand, have a direct positive effect on the work situation, and lead to improved productivity. They may be equated with Maslow’s higher order needs, and are also placed along a continuum – from a highly motivated to a highly unmotivated state. Aspects of the job itself, e.g. level of recognition, pleasure of performance, increased responsibility, and opportunities for advancement and promotion, serve as motivators (Herzberg, 1966).

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y:

Gouws (1995) noted that McGregor’s theory closely resembles that of Maslow, in that the factors McGregor believed act as motivators to people at work, are arranged and satisfied in a similar hierarchy. McGregor also placed physiological needs first, followed by physical and social needs. Egotistical needs are sub-categorized as self-regard needs on the one hand, which involve self-respect, self-confidence, autonomy, achievement, competence and knowledge, and reputation needs on the other. The latter include needs such as the status, recognition, respect and appreciation a person enjoys. The highest level of need is that of self-fulfillment, which people attempt to satisfy through continued self-development and creativity.

Douglas McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y represent an extension of his ideas on motivation to the direction and control of employees in the workplace. According to McGregor’s Theory X, which articulates the traditional approach to motivation, people are not keen on work, and try to avoid it where possible. As a result, employees must be coerced and controlled by punitive measures to perform effectively. The average person is believed to lack ambition, avoid responsibility, and strive for security and financial compensation only. They are egocentric, and not at all mindful of organizational goals. Theory Y, in contrast, reflects a more

1818


modern approach to motivation, in that most people are seen as keen to discipline themselves in order to successfully complete the tasks allocated to them. In addition, they seek responsibility, and are capable of creative problem solving. McGregor regarded Theory Y as a more accurate and realistic portrayal of human behavior, since it represents the integration of individual and organizational goals. McGregor did, however, recognize that the theory does not offer a complete explanation for employee motivation (McGregor, 1960).

McClelland’s learned needs theory:

McClelland’s theory, also referred to as the ‘Three-Needs’ theory (Gouws, 1995) or the ‘Achievement Motivation’ theory (Schultz & Schultz, 1998), was introduced in 1967. The theory is based on the position that achievement-oriented people share three major needs, which are not innate, but acquired through learning and experience (McClelland, 1987). McClelland assigned a specific code to each of the three needs, which include:

The need for Power (n/PWR), which denotes the need to control others, influence their behavior and be responsible for them; the need for Affiliation (n/AFF), which refers to the desire to establish and maintain satisfying relationships with other people; the need for Achievement (n/ACH), viewed as behavior directed towards competition with standards of excellence.

Although not highly influential, McClelland’s theory of motivation was certainly instrumental in focusing attention on the unusual needs of employees with a strong need to achieve (Beach, 1980).

Hackman and Oldham’s task enrichment theory :

Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham’s model, which was introduced in 1980 (Van Niekerk, 1987), is also known as the ‘job characteristics’ theory (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). It developed out of the authors’ research on objective measures of job characteristics that correlated with job satisfaction and work attendance (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). The theory is based on the premise that three psychological states in particular are necessary to enhance a person’s motivation and job satisfaction, namely : the experience of work as meaningful; the experience of work responsibility, i.e. the level of personal responsibility for a person’s work; insight in job performance, i.e. how much insight a person has in how well or how poorly he is performing on his job.

The more intense the experience of these three states, the higher the person’s motivation level will be (Porter, Lawler & Hackman, 1975).

Hackman and Oldham also identified five task characteristics believed to lead to the above motivational states. These characteristics, which include skills variety, task identity, task importance, autonomy and performance feedback, and their interplay with the three motivational states, are represented diagrammatically in Figure 2.2.

1919


Fundamental to this theory is the notion that the need for personal development, creativity and challenge has a very significant impact on the successful execution of a meaningful task. In addition, due to differing individual drives and needs, different people will respond differently to the same task (Van Niekerk, 1987).

The concept of task enrichment has proven to be very meaningful and useful in the workplace, and Hackman and Oldham’s theory therefore continues to stimulate investigation (Tyagi, 1985). A meta-analysis of 200 studies, for example, confirmed the positive relationship between job characteristics, job satisfaction and performance (Fried & Ferris, 1987).

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory:

The concept of the expectancy theory was first develop by Victor Vroom and was published in 1964.Victor Vroom offered an expectancy approach to the understanding of motivation. As a result, motivation is a product of the anticipated value to a person in an action. He perceived probability that the person’s goals would be accomplished as a product of the anticipated value in an action. Thus the Vroom’ model is built around the concepts of value, expectancy and force. The concept of force is on the whole equivalent to motivation and may be shown to be the algebraic sum of the products of valences and expectations Thus,

2020


Valence is the strength of an individual’s preference for an outcome or goal. The strength may be negative (fear demotion or transfer to less important job) or positive (prospect for promotion). Expectancy is the probability that a particular action will lead to a required outcome. If the employee has a particular goal, some behavior has to be produced to accomplish that goal. The employee has to weigh the likelihood of various behaviors that will accomplish the desired goals and select the most successful behavior. Thus the employee’s motivation according to Vroom may be augmented by changing the perception or by boosting the expectancy level through better communication and augmenting the actual reward that will result. Vroom’s theory clarifies the relationship between the employee and the organizational goals and recognizes the differences between employees in producing work motivation.

Furthermore, this theory is consistent with the idea that a manager’s job is to design an environment for performance, necessarily taking into account the differences in various situations. Thus Vroom’s theory is quite consistent with management by objectives. However, this theory is difficult to research and is confronted with practical difficulties in its application. (Bose 2004, 152 - 153).

Vroom tackles three beliefs and brings out with some clarity and applicability. Each of the beliefs deals with what employees think will happen if they put out effort to per-form. The first (B1) comprises of the relationship between effort and performance, that is, (B1) is the employee’s belief about the probability that effort will lead to performance. Another definition is that, B1 is the expectation that effort will lead to success. (B1) can be seen as the employee’s belief about whether or not what is expected can be done. The second (B2) comprises with the relationship between performance and outcomes, that is, the employee’s belief about the probability that performance will lead to outcomes. B2 can be stated in different ways, that is the employee’s belief about the relationship between “what you do” and “what you get.” It is the belief about outcomes following performance and the third (B3) looks at the relationship between outcomes and satisfaction. The third belief (B3) is the employee’s belief about how satisfying or gratifying the outcomes will be. It is the belief about how fulfilling or worthwhile they will be. It is the belief about how much value the outcomes will have in the future when they are received, rather than what their value is now. (Green 1992, 2 - 3)

2121


Motivational factors :

Table 5: Major Factors which motivates employee for higher productivityParticulars Number of respondents PercentageHigh salary 12 27Promotion 3 6Good working environment 20 46Performance rewards 10 21

Figure 5: Major Factors which motivate employees

From the above Table 5 & figure 5 we can infer that for the employees working in the organization the major factors which motivates employees for higher productivity are good working environment condition 46% & high salary is 27%.

Table 6: Job interest & involvement factorsParticulars Number of respondents Percentage

Job security 28 58Company policy 29 60

Interpersonal relationship 31 65

Supervisor 18 28Working environment 28 58

2222


Figure 6: Job interest and involvement factors

From Table 6 & figure 6. We can infer that company policy 60% & superiors support 38% motivates the employee in job interest & involvement.

Table 7: Facilities which motivates employees at workParticulars Number of

respondentsPercentage

Medical 44 92Canteen 40 73Recreation 30 62Grievance handling 39 81Education 44 92Transport 44 92

Figure 7: Facilities which motivates employees at work

From the above Table 7 fig.7 it is evident that the facilities provided by the company like

2323


medical 92%, grievance handling 81% & education facilities 92% motivates highly the employees to give high productivity.

Job satisfaction:

Job satisfaction is defined as the individuals’ attitudes toward the various aspects of their jobs as well as towards the job in general. Locke (1969) defines job satisfaction as the pleasurable emotional state that results from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values. The perceived job satisfaction creates positive feelings among employees, which in turn, represents positive emotional reaction towards desire for empowerment. Locke further argues that the satisfaction is achieved when one realizes one’s important job values provided these are congruent with or help to full-fill one’s basic needs.

The values or conditions conducive to job satisfaction are; mentally challenging work which the individual can cope successfully, personal interest in the work itself, work that is not too physically tiring, rewards for performance that are just, informative and in line with the individual’s personal aspirations, working conditions that are compatible with the individual’s physical needs and that facilitate the accomplishment of his work, high self esteem on the part of the employee and agents in the work place who help the employee to attain job values such as interesting work, pay and promotions, whose basic values are similar to his own, and who minimize role conflict and ambiguity. Job satisfaction is a multi-faceted construct (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1974; Comer, Machleit, & Lagace, 1989).

According to Balzar et al. (1997) job satisfaction is a sensation that employees have about their work environment and their expectations towards work. Thus, job satisfaction can be recognized as what one wants or values from a job (Brief and Weiss 2002).Different kinds of satisfaction lead to diverse objectives and behaviors that ascend from different types of motivation in getting different types of rewards (Luthanset al. 2005).Rewards with their aftermath relationship were expected to establish on satisfaction of the employee with their organization(Milne 2007). Amabile et al. (1994) concluded that employee who reveals high job satisfaction is motivated by rewards, and rewards supported work engagement (Vandenberghe and Trembley 2008). According to Zaini’s (2009) satisfaction of rewards in public and private sector employee has been established certainly associated with job satisfaction.

Furthermore, Zaini et al. (2009) and Chew (2005) preceding research found that job satisfaction is associated with the monetary compensation (pay, promotion, and bonus) and non-monetary compensation is one of the most important explanatory variables in both sectors (A. Furham et al. 2009).

Locke and Lathan (1976) give a comprehensive definition of job satisfaction as pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experience. Job satisfaction is a result of employee's perception of how well their job provides those things

2424


that are viewed as important. According to (Mitchell and Lasan, 1987), it is generally recognized in the organizational behavior field that job satisfaction is the most important and frequently studied attitude. While Luthan (1998) posited that there are three important dimensions to job satisfaction:

• Job satisfaction is an emotional response to a job situation. As such it cannot be seen, it can only be inferred.

• Job satisfaction is often determined by how well outcome meet or exceed expectations. For instance, if organization participants feel that they are working muchharder than others in the department but are receiving fewer rewards they will probably have a negative attitudes towards the work, the boss and or coworkers. On the other hand, if they feel they are being treated very well and are being paid equitably, they are likely to have positive attitudes towards the job.

• Job satisfaction represents several related attitudes which are most importantcharacteristics of a job about which people have effective response. These to Luthansare: the work itself, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and coworkers.

The dynamic of job satisfaction over time :

Job performance need to comply with knowledge acquisition, skills development and of course good personal values and as rewards the employee will have an annual salary progression and promotion. This assessment on job performance in the study will be considered on employees’ that possess annual salary progression only.

Over past decades, economic growth and technological progress have amelioratedthe economic conditions of workers and the material conditions of their workplaces, onaverage. However, some studies on a country basis show that job satisfaction hasrecently decreased in some rich countries, and is presumably stable in others. This iswhat emerges in the US (Blanchflower & Oswald, 1999), in Germany (Sousa-Poza &Sousa-Poza, 2000), and also in the UK (Green & Tsitsianis, 2005), at least since the1970s, and most of the OECD countries during the 1990s (Clark, 2005). For the othercountries the data available are restricted to around six years and show stability (Green &Tsitsianis, 2005).5 The opposite dynamic of job satisfaction with respect to the economicconditions as represented by wages, and to job conditions as represented by workingtime, is also evident (Clark, 2005).

A test for reliability of self-reported data over time has been conducted by Greenand Gallie (2002), who use both data of this kind and an epidemiological measure ofaffective well-being based on two coordinates – enthusiasm-depression and contentmentanxiety – obtaining very similar results in their regression exercises.If job satisfaction decreases or remains stable despite overall economic growth,some other factors may account for the phenomenon. First, increasing inequality in somejob characteristics, principally in the different treatment of some classes of workers,appears to be a significant factor. Specifically, job satisfaction has particularly decreasedfor older (aged over 45) and less-educated workers, while it has somewhat increased foryoung and highly-educated people (Clark, 2005). Secondly, job insecurity, workintensity, greater stress, and dissatisfaction with working hours have increased in the USand in Germany, and they significantly explain the decline of job satisfaction (Green &

2525


Tsitsianis 2005; Blanchflower & Oswald 1999).However, the puzzle of a divergent trend of job satisfaction with respect to economic

growth partially remains, because these studies also show that the explanatory contribution of all the deteriorating factors considered is relatively small.

Theories on job satisfaction :

According to Beck (1983) theories on job satisfaction involve motivational, emotional and informational components, as do other attitude theories. McCormick and Ilgen (1980) have selected and briefly elaborated on the following theories. Since these theories have already been discussed in detail in the section on motivation, only a succinct summary is provided. According to comparison processes theory an individual is said to have some reference standard against which a job is judged (Walker, 1980). These references are determined largely by a person’s internal motivation drivers. The size and direction of the difference between the employed standard and the actual situation determines the level of job satisfaction experienced. An employee motivated by monetary reward may, for example, derive considerable satisfaction from a job that pays more than a previous job, or a similar position the person compares it to. Comparison processes theory relates to needs theories of motivation to some extent, as the satisfaction measurement standards applied originate from a person’s internal motives or needs.

From an instrumentality theory perspective, job satisfaction is said to be high if a person’s job is perceived to be instrumental in getting him what he values or wants from his job. This equates with Vroom’s (1964) VIE theory, which holds that rewards lead to certain behaviors, when these behaviors are believed to be instrumental in providing the desired outcome.

Social influence theory holds that people are influenced by how satisfied they believe other workers are with the same job (Van Vuuren, 1990). New employees may, for example, change their initial misgivings about their job when they discover that others performing the same tasks are satisfied with their work. In this sense social influence theory may share certain common features with equity theory.

Equity theory stipulates that people generally want to receive what they consider a fair or equitable return for their efforts at work. Greater satisfaction is experienced if they perceive the return or reward they receive as equitable. These perceptions may be based on previous or vicarious experience, or on people’s observations of other employees, for example (Van Vuuren, 1990). Job satisfaction in this regard is related to the motivation to achieve a condition of equity or fairness in people’s dealings with others, as postulated by Adams (1965).

Two-factor theory relates to job satisfaction as well as it does to motivation, and posits that the things that provide employees with satisfaction at work are not the same as those that bring about dissatisfaction. This is Herzberg’s theory of satisfiers and dis-satisfiers, or the positive and negative aspects of the job. Dis-satisfiers do not lead to job satisfaction, but prevent dissatisfaction if properly maintained, for example, acceptable service conditions. Satisfiers, on the other hand, impact directly on job satisfaction, for example, positive promotion aspects elevate levels of job satisfaction (Gouws, 1995).

Job satisfaction : Composite summary

2626


The consolidated view of job satisfaction, for purposes of this study, is that the concept represents people’s general attitudes towards, and feelings about their jobs, and that these attitudes and feelings are determined by a wide variety of factors relating to the person, the job, and the organization as a whole. Employees’ feelings and attitudes towards their work are influenced significantly by their sources of motivation and de-motivation (Spector, 2003). In addition, the manner in which they perceive the culture of the organization has a direct bearing on both their level of motivation, and the degree of job satisfaction they experience. It is important to note that these factors differ from person to person, and often also for the same person over time and across his life stages.

The determinants of job satisfaction also differ in the extent to which they impact on job satisfaction, both between factors and between people. In addition to personal factors, job satisfaction may be determined by a number of dimensions within the work situation (Walker, 1980), such as organizational functioning, task or job characteristics, the physical working conditions, career matters (such as advancement potential), social or relationship matters, and aspects relating to remuneration packages and personnel policies. The point of departure of some authors is that job and life dissatisfaction contribute to the general stress a person experiences (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). In order to obtain a more comprehensive view in this regard, causes of stress outside, as well as within the work situation, should therefore be assessed.

Since person-related and job-related variables appear to pre-determine both motivation and job satisfaction (Schultz & Schultz, 1998), the supposition was that a link exists between the two constructs.

The relationship between employee motivation and job satisfaction :

Certain needs and 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. A number of studies (Du Plessis, 2003; Maslow, 1968; Rothmann & Coetzer, 2002; Stinson & Johnson, 1977) have shown that the extent to which people are motivated by challenging tasks and by the sense that their abilities are being stretched directly impacts on the job satisfaction that they experience. People are motivated by their objectives and goals (Spector, 2003); goal involvement and goal attainment have also been shown to be positively related to job satisfaction (Bellenger, Wilcox & Ingram, 1984; Coster, 1992; Strydom & Meyer, 2002). These results are explained by the contribution that achievement makes towards a person’s self-esteem (Beach, 1980), which reinforces his or her sense of contributing towards an organization. A need for achievement is often linked to a need for power in the workplace (McClelland, 1987) and it has been shown that power is a significant predictor of job satisfaction for those workers who are motivated by it (Becherer, Morgan & Richard, 1982; Coster, 1992; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003). Another dimension of work motivation relates to the synergy that people experience between their motivational drive system and the characteristics of their work environment. This includes the extent to which they are motivated by opportunities for interaction at work, by praise and tangible recognition, by the synergy between their own and the organization’s values andprinciples, by their need for job security and by their need for opportunities for continual growth and development. The need for security is one of the most basic needs. Job security refers specifically to one’s expectations about continuity in a job situation and extends to concern over loss of desirable job features, such as promotion opportunities and working conditions (Davy,

2727


Kinicki & Scheck, 1997). This variable has been shown to be an important predictor of job satisfaction (Cohen-Rosenthal & Cairnes, 1991; Davy et al., 1997; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Moon, 2000; Ritter & Anker, 2002; Visser, Breed & Van Breda, 1997). Studies have also shown that many employees experience job satisfaction because their affiliation needs are being satisfied to some extent at work (Cohen-Rosenthal & Cairnes, 1991; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Strydom & Meyer, 2002; Van Vuuren, 1990; Visser et al., 1997).

Needs related to the self and higher-order needs that affect job satisfaction include the recognition of performance (Beach, 1980; Bellenger et al., 1984; Guppy & Rick, 1996; Van Vuuren, 1990), an environment that corresponds with personal values (Deshpande, 1996; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Viswesvaran & Deshpande, 1996) and opportunities for training and development that satisfy the need for self-actualisation (Coster, 1992).

The intrinsic motivation dimension refers to an increase in motivation corresponding with meaningful and stimulating work, flexible structures and procedures, and an adequate levelof autonomy. Literature shows a positive relationship between job satisfaction and the need to perform jobs that are challenging and that provide variety, interest and stimulation (Becherer et al., 1982; Coster, 1992; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Jernigan, Beggs & Kohut, 2002; Kemp, Wall, Clegg & Cordery, 1983; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Strydom & Meyer, 2002; Vercueil, 1970; Visser et al., 1997).

Literature also shows that repetitive jobs lead to lower levels of job satisfaction (Shepard, 1973; Stinson & Johnson, 1977). Autonomous activity is an innate need experienced by many people (Beach, 1980; Coster, 1992; Vercueil, 1970) and scope for greater self-regulation in a work context leads to greater 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). An employee’s perceived control over his or her own work was also found to moderate the relationship between levels of motivation and job satisfaction experienced (Orpen, 1994).

The extrinsic motivation dimension is represented by aspects such as the need for financial reward, positive promotion prospects, and position and status. Extrinsic rewards provided by an organization are those that are tangible and visible to others. A significant positive correlation has been found between the extent to which people are motivated by financial reward and their level of satisfaction with the work (Agho et al., 1993; Bellenger et al., 1984; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Mol, 1990; Strydom & Meyer, 2002; Thomson, 2003; Visser et al., 1997).

Praise and recognition seem to be valued more by senior employees (Bellenger et al., 1984). This represents the affirmation of an individual’s self-worth, which is also represented by the positive relationship between position and status as motivators and the experience of job satisfaction (Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Jernigan et al., 2002). Many employees, especially highly achievement-orientated people, are strongly motivated by opportunities for promotion. This has been shown to improve job satisfaction significantly (Coster, 1992; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Visser et al., 1997).

From a foregoing, it is clear that the realization of personal and job-related characteristics that motivate an individual is related to increased job satisfaction. It was therefore hypothesised that the different dimensions of motivation representing these characteristics are positively related to job satisfaction.

Work performance :

2828


Definition :One’s success at work will further the success of the organization for which one is

employed. But what is the meaning of success, and how does a business measure it? Managers must first hire employees with the right skills and qualifications for the job. Once the hiring process is complete, managers seek to ensure that an employee's work is closely aligned with the organization's goals and objectives.

To achieve strong employee performance, managers conduct employee performance appraisals, implement training and development programs, and decide when to promote and reassign employees. Let's look at each of these features of managing employee performance.

Employee Performance Appraisals :

One may have participated in a performance appraisal for a past or current job. A performance appraisal, also called a performance review, is an evaluation of an employee's work based on a set of specific criteria or standards.

The performance review generally looks back at an employee's performance over the past year and involves setting new plans and goals for the year ahead. When an employee accept a new job, he will want to be sure to have a clear understanding of the performance standards for your position to avoid any surprises when he sit down for his first performance review.

It's always a good idea to prepare for a performance review by evaluating his own job performance ahead of time.

A performance appraisal is usually a face-to-face meeting between a manager and an employee. However, some businesses broaden the appraisal process to include other stakeholders. For example, a 360-degree review provides an employee with feedback from superiors, peers, subordinates, and even outside parties such as customers and vendors. A broader employee review process can uncover areas for improvement that the manager and employee had not identified. It's important to provide guidelines to the participants in a 360-degree review to ensure a fair and accurate review process.

Impact of motivation on employee’s performance :

According to Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation, money is not even a motivator (Herzberg, 1987). Today's workforce is becoming more and more skilful and techno-logically inclined. Managers have to think of new ways to manage this knowledge workforce. With knowledge and skills come higher salary demands. These knowledge workers will no longer “work for beans.” According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, people have physical, security, social, ego and self-actualization needs. People are motivated to full-fill lower-level needs before they move on to full-fill higher-level needs, such as ego (esteem) and self-actualization. (Herzberg 1987) Knowing what people need can help us understand how to motivate today's knowledge workers. Given the fact that these workers command high-paying jobs, we can infer

2929


that money alone does not provide enough of an incentive as a motivator for performance. This is, of course, an element of Herzberg's theory of motivation.

Managers need to provide challenging jobs in order to better motivate today's knowledge workers. Because the physical or material, and social needs that come with the jobs are already fulfilled, these knowledge workers tend to move on to higher-level of needs such as ego (esteem) and self-actualization. The survey we conducted suggests growth opportunities and challenges have a positive effect on a person’s motivation in the work place. The majority of people we surveyed rank growth opportunities higher than pay when it comes to job motivation. Most of the people in the survey answered that they would take a high-profile job with more responsibilities but without any pay increase when given the opportunity. This behavior suggests that people prefer recognition associated with the job. Also, the behavior in choosing the job with more responsibilities suggests that people are not afraid of challenges associated with the job when they are presented in the right context. In this case, by taking on the challenges, people may expect a certain amount of recognition. Managers should keep this in mind when assigning work to their employees.

Work itself is a motivator according to Herzberg's two-factor theory. A worker derives a sense of self-worth in the process of performing the job and, upon completion of that job, a sense of accomplishment. Studies have shown that satisfied workers are more productive (Schermerhorn et al,, 2003). In dealing with today's knowledge workforce, managers need to design jobs that are both challenging and satisfying. In order to design the “right” job for the right person, the job designing process needs to involve employees because their needs have to be addressed. A significant number of jobs in the workplace are apparently not very challenging. In situations like these, managers can set goals and objectives so employees know what is expected of them. These goals and objectives need to be specifically stated in order to have most motivating effect. Having a clear goal can make a previously routine job become more of a challenge. With this view, the worker becomes more motivated in order to achieve that goal. Whether the job is by design or by goal setting, a highly motivated worker is likely to be one who has the necessary skills and supplies to accomplish the job.

The survey conducted also indicated that a majority of the respondents consider the opportunity for growth to be more of a factor in job motivation than pay. Today's knowledge workers also demand growth opportunities from their work place. These workers value new knowledge and new skills. Companies that can provide these growth opportunities reap the benefits of having a motivated workforce with improved skills. These growth opportunities can involve on-the-job training or company-paid technical training. Managers need to understand that challenging work and opportunities for growth really go hand in hand. Workers who routinely perform challenging work inherit personal growth and thus become even more motivated and productive. Designing challenging work and providing growth opportunities can be cost-effective ways to boost employees‟ motivation. Non-cash rewards also play an important role in any organization, as rewards for exceptional performance are vital for employee motivation. Employees want and

3030


need recognition on the job, and an effective way of satisfying this need is through non-cash rewards. Non-cash re-wards appeal to employees on a personal level. Because non-cash rewards have proven to be effective motivators, companies that “want rewards to be cost-effective but memorable are seeking the services of firms that specialize in employees‟ recognition According to the survey we conducted, 94% of those surveyed felt that non-cash rewards can be very effective in motivating employees.

This seems to demonstrate that money is not everything when it comes to motivating a person on the job. Non-cash awards play an important role in employees‟ motivation and knowing their contributions count is vital to employee performance. As previously mentioned, recognition is another important factor that managers must identify in motivating their employees according to the interview conducted. Recognition can come in many forms, most of them with little or no real cost to a company. A compliment such as “a simple „thank you‟ still goes a long way in motivating employees” (Kelly, 2010), or it can be more formal such as an “employee of the month” award. “The value of recognition is the attention they receive” (Wiscombe, 2002). Gelleman (1992) states in his book, Motivation in the Real World: The Art of Getting Extra Effort From Everyone – Including Yourself, “If you are dealing with individuals who, regardless of their demographics, want to take charge of their own life, at least to the extent that circumstances permit them to do that, you can motivate them. What that kind of person needs is plenty of opportunity for achievement and recognition” (Gellerman, 1992). Employees and people in general want to feel like they are individuals and that they can distinguish them-selves by doing an exceptional or outstanding job. This concept would relate to the level of “ego” in Maslow‟s theory on the hierarchy of needs, which deals with independence, achievement, freedom, status, recognition, and self-esteem. By acknowledging the excellence and well-performed activities of employees, managers can determine the type of recognition required. The level of appreciation from recognition rises if it is an honest and well-deserve recognition because “if employees believe you are a fair, honest and caring boss, most of them will remain loyal and respond in kind” (Wiscombe, 2002).

Connection job motivation- job performance- job satisfaction :

The issue of job satisfaction and the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance and between job motivation and job performance has been a constant concern for researchers but also for practitioners. There have been, over time, different views on satisfaction and its role in obtaining job performance. During the 1950s, is considered that satisfaction is the direct and immediate cause of the job performance. Today, thanks to the evolution of society and science, it is considered that although satisfaction is related to performance, it is only one of its possible causes.

G. Johns made some comments on this issue that come to clarify this phenomenon: "job satisfaction refers to a collection of the workers attitudes towards their work," showing two related concepts: “satisfaction facets” - the tendency of an employee to be more or less satisfied with various facets of his work (the work itself, salary, recognition, working conditions,

3131


colleagues, organizational politics, etc..) and “overall satisfaction "- an average or a total attitudes that individuals have toward different facets of their work.

Once accepted that satisfaction has several facets, researchers have questioned their count, making numerous studies in this regard. They have shown that there are between five and twenty facets of job satisfaction and subsequently, their number was limited to five: the work itself, pay, supervision, co-workers, promotion. Determining the relationship between motivation and satisfaction and between satisfaction and performance is still not a complete agreement among experts, given the complexity of the phenomena being studied. Over time, the relationship between motivation and satisfaction was addressed by organizational-managerial psychology from multiple perspectives.

The first belongs to authors considered that only motivation leads to behavior change, representing the impulse in this respect, while satisfaction no involves such change, it is a subjective state of pleasure. It is thus inferred that only motivation affects work performance, but not the satisfaction. Research has shown a clear link between satisfaction and productive behavior. Other authors insist on the relationship between motivation and satisfaction, which is presented unilaterally, only from the motivation to satisfaction, which is considered as an effect of motivation. Human relations movement generalize inverse relationship from satisfaction to motivation, considering satisfaction as the direct cause of motivation. Each of the three perspectives emphasizes one aspect of the phenomena analyzed without explaining the interaction between them and without regard to their unit. In the literature of our country, a clear approach to the problem of interaction between motivation and satisfaction is given by Professor Mielu Zlate witch shows that,

• The Status of satisfaction or dissatisfaction is an indicator of motivation;• Motivation and satisfaction appear in a double capacity: cause and effect which means that motivation leads to satisfaction and vice versa;• Both motivation and satisfaction relate to job performance and they can influence it

either positively or negatively; the satisfaction obtained as a result of the participation of individuals in organizational life is not only an individual problem but also one of their organizational repercussions on its; the influence of motivation and satisfaction on job performance is essential for managers to pay particular attention of these elements.

The issue of the relationship between satisfaction and performance is also at least as controversial as the issues discussed above with respect to these phenomena. In connection with this relationship existed in the literature, over time, at least three points of view which held that: a) satisfaction causes performance; b) performance causes satisfaction; c) rewards are involved between satisfaction and performance.

The first and second terms have not been confirmed by empirical research, they actually demonstrating that satisfied workers are not more productive than dissatisfied. This led to the hypothesis that the performance when it is followed by rewards, causes satisfaction. Porter and Lawler showed that satisfaction does not lead to job performance and job performance not lead to satisfaction unless certain conditions are met.Thus, employees’ performances lead to extrinsic or intrinsic rewards. The rewards themselves do not lead to the emergence of satisfaction, but only if they are perceived as fair in relation to the effort and to the rewards of others. Therefore, the rewards perceived as fair, resulting in drivers of employee satisfaction to make a new effort, to obtain new achievements. The conclusion reached by researchers is that "job satisfaction and job performance are virtually unrelated, a

3232


significant relationship only emerges when considering the role of rewards and the circumstances in which they are granted."

We believe that this view is quite real and can be verified by each of us. The implication of this conclusion is very important for the organization management and it is about ensuring a rigorous results assessment and rewards based on fairness, transparency, openness, leading to fair rewards for employees, coupled with the results obtained. Experts have questioned the type of relationship existing between job satisfaction and job performance. Between the two variables there is a divergent relationship, or a convergent relationship?

Thus, there are some researchers who claim that there is a negative, divergent relationship between the two variables, which can be explained as follows: increased productivity (that is, high performance) can be achieved only by increasing human strain over the accepted level for a human being. This means that obtaining performance would result in lower satisfaction. In this respect, increased job satisfaction could be obtained by decreasing productivity and thus, economic profitability.

The research reached the following conclusion: “divergence or convergence of two factors, job satisfaction and job performance, is not a matter of principle, but depends on the methods of work organization, social and psychological conditions in the organization, which means that in some circumstances the two factors are actually divergent while in the others circumstances they are converging.”

Thus, the report of divergence between job satisfaction and job performance is valid in exploited labour conditions, conducted in a socio-cultural environment in which the people and the quality of human life have a lower value and in the organizations that use predominantly extrinsic and negative forms of motivation. The thesis of convergence is valid in organizations that promote employees’ participation, cooperation and use complex and varied forms of motivation. Relationship of convergence between job satisfaction and job performance is much higher if the work is complex, involving a high degree of responsibility, unless simple work, repetitive, poorly qualified. The issues presented in this section lead us to conclude that the connection between job motivation, job satisfaction and job performance is not a linear connection or a constant connection and must be interpreted nuanced, depending on the conditions under which it manifests itself.

This indicates the importance of work environment in increase both performance and satisfaction, and in terms of management, the need to develop an organizational culture that promotes values, creativity, fairness and justice, aimed to obtain both the organizational performance and employee satisfaction.

These conclusions are verified with a survey conducted among trade enterprises in the Romanian Western Region, and on this basis we will try to outline a motivational system adapted to trade specific business.

3333


Summary of findings & suggestion :

1. Most of the employees like their organization very much.2. Employees feel that their wages & salary are quite attractive.3. They are highly committed to their work & their organization which is very much

important.4. Most of the employees feel that they are sent for training & development regularly.5. The employees working in the PSU are highly motivated due to good working

environment & High salary.6. Company’s policy & superiors support highly motivates for job interest &

involvement.7. The facilities provided by company like medical & educational facilities motivate the

employee for higher productivity.8. Employees should be sent for training & development to improve their skills &

upgrade to new technology.9. New technology should be adopted very soon to improve the efficiency of the job & in

turn motivate employees.10. Under performers & non performers should be given more responsibility & different

roles & responsibility should be given to them to make them perform well, & theconsequence of non performance should be highlighted.

11. Communication & feedback if encouraged will help to understand employees better & solve their problems on time.

Conclusion:Peoples are the important resource for organizations. Sometimes human resource is

unkempt by the management. The quality of this department can be enhanced by motivation. Motivation is driving force that put the willingness in a person to perform the task. There is significance relationship between the work motivation and job satisfaction. The company increases the level of motivation of employees; in result it can increase the level of job satisfaction. Employees’ turnover can be reduced by motivation. Job commitment can also be increased through motivation. The workers were positively affected toward higher productivity with the provision of regular promotion, assurance of adequate job security and bonus for excellent performance. Nevertheless monetary incentives and rewards do not exert stronger influence on workers than any form of motivational factor. The organization should encourage initiative and creativity by allowing for some flexibility in application of rules and regulation. Too much rigidity in applying the rules may constitute a set back in the modern growth of the organization and dampen initiative and creativity. If the worker does not understand his duty, how can he perform? Understanding his task will increase the likelihood of improving his performance eventually lead to high productivity.

No human behavior and values can be distinguished in a simple way. It is as such of utmost importance to understand this theory of motivation for it is interpreted differently in different industries. What may motivate today may not have the similar effect the day after. In conclusion, motivation must be a never-ending process and employees should be continuously.

3434


Recommendations :

Based on the study, the following recommendation is made in order to improve organization productivity and workers performance.

1. Management should standardize the workers motivation policies to reflect the desire and needs of the workers.

2. Workers salaries and wages should be carefully handled to reflect modern day package.

3. Management should reward their workers always with promotion and practice fairness in managing a organization affairs.

4. It is suggested for management to conduct more study for further clarification of the finding and the studies is restricted for generalization due to limited time and scope of the study.

References:

1. Cook, Curtis W. ‘Guidelines for managing motivation Business Horizons’, April 1980.2. Buhler, P. ‘Motivating the employee of the 90s’ New York: Irwin Publishers 1980.3. Capozzoli, T.K.’ Creating a motivating environment for employees.’ New York:

McGrawHill (1998).4. Adams, Orvilland Hicks,V.’ Pay and nonpay incentives, performance and

motivation,prepared for WHO’, December 2000, Global Health Workforce Strategy Group. 2000.

5. Chan, W., Kaka, A., ‘Productivity improvements: understand the workforce perceptions of productivity first’.2007.

6. Howell, Heather. . Motivating and appreciating your staff.2000.7. Khan, M. S. ‘Methods of motivating for increased productivity’, Journal of Management

in Engineering. 19938 Academia Română, Dicţionar explicativ al limbii române (ediţia a II-a), Editura Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureşti, 1998;9. Bernoux, Ph., La sociologie des organisations, Edition du Seuil, Paris, 1987, p. 25.10. Chelcea, S., Metodologia cercetării sociologice, Editura Economică, Bucureşti, 2001;11. Chiffre, J.D., Teboul, J., La motivation et ses nouveaux outils, ESF Editeur, Paris, 1990.12. Ivancevich, J., Donnelly, J., Gibson, L., Management. Principles and Functions, Homewood, Boston, 4-th ed., 1989.13. Johns, G. , Comportament organizaţional, Editura Economică, Bucureşti, 1998, p. 128.14. Luţ, D.M, Human Resource Management Improvement in the Romanian Trade Enterprises in the Context of the Demands Induced By Globalisation and the EU Integration, Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Volume X, Issue 1/2010, Ovidius University Press.15. Mitchell, T.R., 1982. “Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice”. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 1,1982, pp. 80-88.16. Newcomb, T.M., Turner R.H., Converse, Ph., Social Psychology, New York, 1995.17. Pinder, C.C. Work motivation in organizational behaviour. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.18. Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., Managerial Attitudes and Performances, Irwin, 1968.

3535


19. Rotariu, T. (coord.), Metode statistice aplicate în ştiinţele sociale, Editura Polirom, Iaşi, 1999;20. Roussel, Patrice, Remuneration, motivation et satisfaction du travail, Editura Economica, Paris, 1990.21. Steers, R.M., Introduction to Organizational Behavior, Scott Foresman & Comp., 1988, p. 306-307.22. Zlate, Mielu, Tratat de psihologie organizaţional-managerială, vol. II, Editura Polirom, Iaşi, 2007, vol. II, p. 387-389.23. Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

24. Alderfer, C.P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175.25. CLAYTON A.P., 1972. Existence, relatedness, and growth: human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press. 26. HEYEL C., 1982. The Encyclopedia of management. 3rd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 27. KAHYA, E., 2007. The effects of job characteristics and working conditions on job performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37, 515–52328. MASLOW A.H., 1954. Motivation & Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

29. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

3636


Final Paper (EFFECT OF MOTIVATION ON PERFORMANCE & JOB SATISFACTION )

Documents

Transcript of Final Paper (EFFECT OF MOTIVATION ON PERFORMANCE & JOB SATISFACTION )