what is motivation

67
WHAT IS MOTIVATION MOTIVATION is the driving force by which humans achieve their goals. Motivation is said to be intrinsic or extrinsic. The term is generally used for humans but it can also be used to describe the causes for animal behavior as well. This article refers to human motivation. According to various theories, motivation may be rooted in a basic need to minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure, or it may include specific needs such as eating and resting, or a desired object, goal, state of being, ideal, or it may be attributed to less-apparent reasons such as altruism, selfishness, morality, or avoiding mortality. Conceptually, motivation should not be confused with eithervolition or optimism. Motivation is related to, but distinct from, emotion. Motivation concepts Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on any external pressure. Intrinsic motivation has been studied by social and educational psychologists since the early 1970s. Research has found that it is usually associated with high educational achievement and enjoyment by students evaluation theory. Students are likely to be intrinsically motivated if they:

Upload: god26

Post on 22-Nov-2015

18 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

what is motivation

TRANSCRIPT

WHAT IS MOTIVATIONMOTIVATIONis the driving force by which humans achieve their goals. Motivation is said to beintrinsicorextrinsic. The term is generally used for humans but it can also be used to describe the causes for animal behavior as well. This article refers to human motivation. According to various theories, motivation may be rooted in a basic need to minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure, or it may include specific needs such as eating and resting, or a desired object,goal, state of being,ideal, or it may be attributed to less-apparent reasons such asaltruism,selfishness,morality, or avoidingmortality. Conceptually, motivation should not be confused with eithervolitionoroptimism. Motivation is related to, but distinct from,emotion.Motivation conceptsIntrinsic and extrinsic motivationIntrinsic motivationrefers to motivation that is driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on any external pressure. Intrinsic motivation has been studied bysocialandeducationalpsychologists since the early 1970s. Research has found that it is usually associated with high educational achievement and enjoyment by students evaluation theory.Students are likely to be intrinsically motivated if they: attribute their educational results to factors under their own control (e.g., the effort expended),believe they can be effective agents in reaching desired goals (i.e. the results are not determined by luck),are interested in mastering a topic, rather than just rote-learning to achieve good grades.Extrinsic motivationcomes from outside of the individual. Common extrinsic motivations are rewards like money and grades,coercionand threat of punishment. Competition is in general extrinsic because it encourages the performer to win and beat others, not to enjoy the intrinsic rewards of the activity. A crowd cheering on the individual and trophies are also extrinsic incentives.Social psychological research has indicated that extrinsic rewards can lead toover justificationand a subsequent reduction in intrinsic motivation. In one study demonstrating this effect, children who expected to be (and were) rewarded with a ribbon and a gold star for drawing pictures spent less time playing with the drawing materials in subsequent observations than children who were assigned to an unexpected reward condition. For those children who received no extrinsic reward,Self-determination theoryproposes that extrinsic motivation can be internalised by the individual if the task fits with their values and beliefs and therefore helps to fulfill their basic psychological needs.Self-controlThe self-control of motivation is increasingly understood as a subset ofemotional intelligence; a person may be highly intelligent according to a more conservative definition (as measured by manyintelligence tests), yet unmotivated to dedicate this intelligence to certain tasks.Yale School of ManagementprofessorVictor Vroom's "expectancy theory" provides an account of when people will decide whether to exert self control to pursue a particular goal.Drives and desires can be described asa deficiency or need that activates behavior that is aimed at a goal or an incentive. These are thought to originate within the individual and may not require external stimuli to encourage the behavior. Basic drives could be sparked by deficiencies such as hunger, which motivates a person to seek food; whereas more subtle drives might be the desire for praise and approval, which motivates a person to behave in a manner pleasing to others.By contrast, the role of extrinsic rewards and stimuli can be seen in the example of training animals by giving them treats when they perform a trick correctly. The treat motivates the animals to perform the trick consistently, even later when the treat is removed from the process.Motivational theoriesIncentive theoryAreward, tangible or intangible, is presented after the occurrence of an action (i.e. behavior) with the intent to cause the behavior to occur again. This is done byassociatingpositive meaning to the behavior. Studies show that if the person receives the reward immediately, the effect is greater, and decreases as duration lengthens. Repetitive action-reward combination can cause the action to becomehabit. Motivation comes from two sources: oneself, and other people. These two sources are called intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, respectively.Reinforcers and reinforcement principles of behavior differ from the hypothetical construct of reward. A reinforcer is any stimulus change following a response that increases the future frequency or magnitude of that response, therefore the cognitivive approach is certainly the way forward as in 1973 Maslow descibed it as being the golden pineapple. Positive reinforcement is demonstrated by an increase in the future frequency or magnitude of a response due to in the past being followed contingently by a reinforcing stimulus. Negative reinforcement involves stimulus change consisting of the removal of an aversive stimulus following a response. Positive reinforcement involves a stimulus change consisting of the presentation or magnification of an appetitive stimulus following a response. From this perspective, motivation is mediated by environmental events, and the concept of distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic forces is irrelevant.Applying proper motivational techniques can be much harder than it seems. Steven Kerr notes that when creating a reward system, it can be easy to reward A, while hoping for B, and in the process, reap harmful effects that can jeopardize your goals.Incentive theory inpsychologytreats motivation andbehaviorof the individual as they are influenced bybeliefs, such as engaging in activities that are expected to be profitable. Incentive theory is promoted bybehavioral psychologists, such asB.F. Skinnerand literalized by behaviorists, especially by Skinner in hisphilosophyofRadical behaviorism, to mean that a person's actions always havesocialramifications: and if actions are positively received people are more likely to act in this manner, or if negatively received people are less likely to act in this manner.Incentive theory distinguishes itself from other motivation theories, such asdrive theory, in the direction of the motivation. In incentive theory,stimuli"attract", to use the term above, a person towards them. As opposed to the body seeking to reestablishhomeostasispushing it towards the stimulus. In terms of behaviorism,incentive theoryinvolvespositive reinforcement: the stimulus has been conditioned to make the person happier. For instance, a person knows that eatingfood, drinkingwater, or gainingsocial capitalwill make them happier. As opposed to indrive theory, which involvesnegative reinforcement: a stimulus has been associated with the removal of thepunishment-- the lack ofhomeostasisin the body. For example, a person has come to know that if they eat when hungry, it will eliminate that negative feeling ofhunger, or if they drink when thirsty, it will eliminate that negative feeling of thirst.Drive-reduction theoryThere are a number of drive theories. TheDrive Reduction Theorygrows out of the concept that we have certain biological drives, such as hunger. As time passes the strength of the drive increases if it is not satisfied (in this case by eating). Upon satisfying a drive the drive's strength is reduced. The theory is based on diverse ideas from the theories ofFreudto the ideas offeedbackcontrol systems, such as athermostat.Drive theory has some intuitive or folk validity. For instance when preparing food, the drive model appears to be compatible with sensations of rising hunger as the food is prepared, and, after the food has been consumed, a decrease in subjective hunger. There are several problems, however, that leave the validity of drive reduction open for debate. The first problem is that it does not explain how secondary reinforcers reduce drive. For example, money satisfies no biological or psychological needs, but a pay check appears to reduce drive throughsecond-order conditioning. Secondly, a drive, such as hunger, is viewed as having a "desire" to eat, making the drive ahomuncularbeinga feature criticized as simply moving the fundamental problem behind this "small man" and his desires.In addition, it is clear that drive reduction theory cannot be a complete theory of behavior, or a hungry human could not prepare a meal without eating the food before he finished cooking it. The ability of drive theory to cope with all kinds of behavior, from not satisfying a drive (by adding on other traits such as restraint), or adding additional drives for "tasty" food, which combine with drives for "food" in order to explain cooking render it hard to test.Cognitive dissonance theorySuggested byLeon Festinger,cognitive dissonanceoccurs when an individual experiences some degree of discomfort resulting from an incompatibility between two cognitions. For example, a consumer may seek to reassure himself regarding a purchase, feeling, in retrospect, that another decision may have been preferable.While not a theory of motivation, per se, the theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have amotivational driveto reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, or actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories insocial psychology.Need theoriesNeed hierarchy theoryThe content theory includes the hierarchy of needs fromAbraham Maslowand the two- factor theory fromHerzberg. Maslow's theory is one of the most widely discussed theories of motivation.The American motivation psychologist Abraham H. Maslow developed the Hierarchy of needs consistent of five hierarchic classes. It shows the complexity of human requirements. Maslow says that first of all the basic requirements have to be satisfied. The basic requirements build the first step in his pyramid. They decide about to be or not to be. If there is any deficit on this level, the whole behavior of a human will be oriented to satisfy this deficit. Subsequently we do have the second level, which awake a need for security. Basically it is oriented on a future need for security. After securing those two levels, the motives shift in the social sphere, which form the third stage. Psychological requirements consist in the fourth level, while the top of the hierarchy comprise the self- realization So theory can be summarized as follows:Human beings have wants and desires which influence their behavior. Only unsatisfied needs influence behavior, satisfied needs do not.Since needs are many, they are arranged in order of importance, from the basic to the complex.The person advances to the next level of needs only after the lower level need is at least minimally satisfied.The further the progress up the hierarchy, the more individuality, humanness and psychological health a person will show.The needs, listed from basic (lowest-earliest) to most complex (highest-latest) are as follows: Physiology(hunger, thirst, sleep, etc.) Safety/Security/Shelter/Health Belongingness/Love/Friendship Self-esteem/Recognition/Achievement Self actualizationHerzberg's two-factor theoryFrederick Herzberg'stwo-factor theory, a.k.a. intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, concludes that certain factors in the workplace result injob satisfaction, but if absent, they don't lead to dissatisfaction but no satisfaction.The factors that motivate people can change over their lifetime, but "respect for me as a person" is one of the top motivating factors at any stage of life.He distinguished between: Motivators; (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) which give positive satisfaction,and Hygiene factors; (e.g. status,job security,salaryand fringe benefits) that do not motivate if present, but, if absent, result in demotivation.The name Hygiene factors is used because, like hygiene, the presence will not make you healthier, but absence can cause health deterioration.The theory is sometimes called the "Motivator-Hygiene Theory" and/or "The Dual Structure Theory."Herzberg's theory has found application in such occupational fields as information systems and in studies of user satisfaction (seeComputer user satisfaction).Alderfer's ERG theoryAlderfer, expanding on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, created theERG theory. This theory posits that there are three groups of core needs existence, relatedness, and growth, hence the label: ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs are those of relatedness- the desire we have for maintaining important interpersonal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow's social need and the external component of Maslow's esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs' an intrinsic desire for personal development. These include the intrinsic component from Maslow's esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization.Self-determination theorySelf-determination theory, developed byEdward Deciand Richard Ryan, focuses on the importance ofintrinsic motivationin driving human behavior. Like Maslow's hierarchical theory and others that built on it, SDT posits a natural tendency toward growth and development. Unlike these other theories, however, SDT does not include any sort of "autopilot" for achievement, but instead requires active encouragement from the environment. The primary factors that encourage motivation and development are autonomy, competence feedback, and relatedness.Broad theoriesThe latest approach in developing a broad, integrative theory of motivation is Temporal Motivation Theory. Integrating theories of motivation. Introduced in their 2007Academy of Management Reviewarticle, it synthesizes into a single formulation the primary aspects of all other major motivational theories, including Incentive Theory, Drive Theory, Need Theory, Self-Efficacy and Goal Setting. Notably, it simplifies the field of motivation considerably and allows findings from one theory to be translated into terms of another.Also, Achievement Motivation is an integrative perspective based on the premise that performance motivation results from the way broad components of personality are directed towards performance. As a result, it includes a range of dimensions that are relevant to success at work but which are not conventionally regarded as being part of performance motivation. Especially it integrates formerly separated approaches as Need for Achievement with e.g. social motives like dominance. The Achievement Motivation Inventory is based on this theory and assesses three factors (17 separated scales) relevant to vocational and professional success.Cognitive theoriesGoal-setting theoryGoal-setting theoryis based on the notion that individuals sometimes have a drive to reach a clearly defined end state. Often, this end state is a reward in itself. A goal's efficiency is affected by three features: proximity, difficulty and specificity. An ideal goal should present a situation where the time between the initiation of behavior and the end state is close. This explains why some children are more motivated to learn how to ride a bike than to masteralgebra. A goal should be moderate, not too hard or too easy to complete. In both cases, most people are not optimally motivated, as many want a challenge (which assumes some kind of insecurity of success). At the same time people want to feel that there is a substantial probability that they will succeed. Specificity concerns the description of the goal in their class. The goal should be objectively defined and intelligible for the individual. A classic example of a poorly specified goal is to get the highest possible grade. Most children have no idea how much effort they need to reach that goal.Models of behavior changeSocial-cognitive models of behavior change include the constructs of motivation andvolition. Motivation is seen as a process that leads to the forming of behavioral intentions. Volition is seen as a process that leads from intention to actual behavior. In other words, motivation and volition refer to goal setting and goal pursuit, respectively. Both processes require self-regulatory efforts. Several self-regulatory constructs are needed to operate inorchestrationto attain goals. An example of such a motivational and volitional construct is perceivedself-efficacy. Self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans, and the initiation of action. It can support the translation of intentions into action.Unconscious motivationSomepsychologistsbelieve that a significant portion of human behavior is energized and directed by unconscious motives. According toMaslow, "Psychoanalysis has often demonstrated that the relationship between a conscious desire and the ultimate unconscious aim that underlies it need not be at all direct.Controlling motivationThe control of motivation is only understood to a limited extent. There are many different approaches ofmotivation training, but many of these are consideredpseudoscientificby critics. To understand how to control motivation it is first necessary to understand why many people lack motivation.Employee motivationWorkers in any organization need something to keep them working. Most times thesalaryof the employee is enough to keep him or her working for an organization. However, sometimes just working for salary is not enough for employees to stay at an organization. An employee must be motivated to work for a company or organization. If no motivation is present in an employee, then that employees quality of work or all work in general will deteriorate.Employee motivation is the level of energy, commitment, and creativity that a company's workers apply to their jobs. In the increasingly competitive business environment of recent years, finding ways to motivate employees has become a pressing concern for many managers. In fact, a number of different theories and methods of employee motivation have emerged, ranging from monetary incentives to increased involvement and empowerment. Employee motivation can sometimes be particularly problematic for small businesses, where the owner often has spent so many years building a company that he/she finds it difficult to delegate meaningful responsibilities to others. But entrepreneurs should be mindful of such pitfalls, for the effects of low employee motivation on small businesses can be devastating. Some of the problems associated with unmotivated workers include complacency, declining morale, and widespread discouragement. If allowed to continue, these problems can reduce productivity, earnings, and competitiveness in a small business.On the other hand, small businesses can also provide an ideal atmosphere for fostering employee motivation, because employees are able to see the results of their contributions in a more immediate way than in large firms. Besides increasing productivity and competitiveness, a highly motivated work force can allow a small business owner to relinquish day-today, operational control and instead concentrate on long-term strategies to grow the business. "Workers really do want to be inspired about their work, and when they are, they work better, smarter, and harder," business coach Don Maruska toldEntrepreneur.Moreover, a business that institutes effective wayswhether tangible (such as a financial bonus) or intangible (say, a plum assignment for an upcoming project)of rewarding employees for good work can be an invaluable tool in employee retention. "People enjoy working, and tend to thrive in organizations that create positive work environments," one business researcher toldHR Focus."[They thrive in] environments where they can make a difference, and where most people in the organization are competent and pulling together to move the company forward. Appropriately structured reward and recognition programs are important, but not exclusive, components in this mix."WHAT MOTIVATESOne approach to employee motivation has been to view "add-ins" to an individual's job as the primary factors in improving performance. Endless mixes of employee benefitssuch as health care, life insurance, profit sharing, employee stock ownership plans, exercise facilities, subsidized meal plans, child care availability, company cars, and morehave been used by companies in their efforts to maintain happy employees in the belief that happy employees are motivated employees.Many modern theorists, however, propose that the motivation an employee feels toward his or her job has less to do with material rewards than with the design of the job itself. Studies as far back as 1950 have shown that highly segmented and simplified jobs resulted in lower employee morale and output. Other consequences of low employee motivation include absenteeism and high turnover, both of which are very costly for any company. As a result, "job enlargement" initiatives began to crop up in major companies in the 1950s.On the academic front, Turner and Lawrence suggested that there are three basic characteristics of a "motivating" job:It must allow a worker to feel personally responsible for a meaningful portion of the work accomplished. An employee must feel ownership of and connection with the work he or she performs. Even in team situations, a successful effort will foster an awareness in an individual that his or her contributions were important in accomplishing the group's tasks.It must provide outcomes which have intrinsic meaning to the individual. Effective work that does not lead a worker to feel that his or her efforts matter will not be maintained. The outcome of an employee's work must have value to himself or herself and to others in the organization.It must provide the employee with feedback about his or her accomplishments. A constructive, believable critique of the work performed is crucial to a worker's motivation to improve.While terminology changes, the tenets of employee motivation remain relatively unchanged from findings over half a century ago. Today's buzzwords include "empowerment," "quality circles," and "teamwork." All of these terms demonstrate the three characteristics of motivating jobs set forth in the theory of Turner and Lawrence. Empowerment gives autonomy and allows an employee to have ownership of ideas and accomplishments, whether acting alone or in teams. Quality circles and the increasing occurrence of teams in today's work environments give employees opportunities to reinforce the importance of the work accomplished by members as well as receive feedback on the efficacy of that work.In small businesses, which may lack the resources to enact formal employee motivation programs, managers can nonetheless accomplish the same basic principles. In order to help employees feel like their jobs are meaningful and that their contributions are valuable to the company, the small business owner needs to communicate the company's purpose to employees. This communication should take the form of words as well as actions. In addition, the small business owner should set high standards for employees, but also remain supportive of their efforts when goals cannot be reached. It may also be helpful to allow employees as much autonomy and flexibility as possible in how their jobs are performed. Creativity will be encouraged if honest mistakes are corrected but not punished. Finally, the small business owner should take steps to incorporate the vision of employees for the company with his or her own vision. This will motivate employees to contribute to the small business's goals, as well as help prevent stagnation in its direction and purpose.MOTIVATION METHODSThere are as many different methods of motivating employees today as there are companies operating in the global business environment. Still, some strategies are prevalent across all organizations striving to improve employee motivation. The best employee motivation efforts will focus on what the employees deem to be important. It may be that employees within the same department of the same organization will have different motivators. Many organizations today find that flexibility in job design and reward systems has resulted in employees' increased longevity with the company, improved productivity, and better morale.EMPOWERMENTGiving employees more responsibility and decision-making authority increases their realm of control over the tasks for which they are held responsible and better equips them to carry out those tasks. As a result, feelings of frustration arising from being held accountable for something one does not have the resources to carry out are diminished. Energy is diverted from self-preservation to improved task accomplishment.CREATIVITY AND INNOVATIONAt many companies, employees with creative ideas do not express them to management for fear that their input will be ignored or ridiculed. Company approval and toeing the company line have become so ingrained in some working environments that both the employee and the organization suffer. When the power to create in the organization is pushed down from the top to line personnel, employees who know a job, product, or service best are given the opportunity to use their ideas to improve it. The power to create motivates employees and benefits the organization in having a more flexible work force, using more wisely the experience of its employees, and increasing the exchange of ideas and information among employees and departments. These improvements also create an openness to change that can give a company the ability to respond quickly to market changes and sustain a first mover advantage in the marketplace.LEARNINGIf employees are given the tools and the opportunities to accomplish more, most will take on the challenge. Companies can motivate employees to achieve more by committing to perpetual enhancement of employee skills. Accreditation and licensing programs for employees are an increasingly popular and effective way to bring about growth in employee knowledge and motivation. Often, these programs improve employees' attitudes toward the client and the company, while bolstering self-confidence. Supporting this assertion, an analysis of factors which influence motivation-to-learn found that it is directly related to the extent to which training participants believe that such participation will affect their job or career utility. In other words, if the body of knowledge gained can be applied to the work to be accomplished, then the acquisition of that knowledge will be a worthwhile event for the employee and employer.QUALITY OF LIFEThe number of hours worked each week by American workers is on the rise, and many families have two adults working those increased hours. Under these circumstances, many workers are left wondering how to meet the demands of their lives beyond the workplace. Often, this concern occurs while at work and may reduce an employee's productivity and morale. Companies that have instituted flexible employee arrangements have gained motivated employees whose productivity has increased. Programs incorporating flextime, condensed workweeks, or job sharing, for example, have been successful in focusing overwhelmed employees toward the work to be done and away from the demands of their private lives.MONETARY INCENTIVEFor all the championing of alternative motivators, money still occupies a major place in the mix of motivators. The sharing of a company's profits gives incentive to employees to produce a quality product, perform a quality service, or improve the quality of a process within the company. What benefits the company directly benefits the employee. Monetary and other rewards are being given to employees for generating cost-savings or process-improving ideas, to boost productivity and reduce absenteeism. Money is effective when it is directly tied to an employee's ideas or accomplishments. Nevertheless, if not coupled with other, nonmonetary motivators, its motivating effects are short-lived. Further, monetary incentives can prove counterproductive if not made available to all members of the organization.OTHER INCENTIVESStudy after study has found that the most effective motivators of workers are nonmonetary. Monetary systems are insufficient motivators, in part because expectations often exceed results and because disparity between salaried individuals may divide rather than unite employees. Proven nonmonetary positive motivators foster team spirit and include recognition, responsibility, and advancement. Managers who recognize the "small wins" of employees, promote participatory environments, and treat employees with fairness and respect will find their employees to be more highly motivated. One company's managers brainstormed to come up with 30 powerful rewards that cost little or nothing to implement. The most effective rewards, such as letters of commendation and time off from work, enhanced personal ful-fillment and self-respect. Over the longer term, sincere praise and personal gestures are far more effective and more economical than awards of money alone. In the end, a program that combines monetary reward systems and satisfies intrinsic, self-actualizing needs may be the most potent employee motivator.JOB SATISFACTIONdescribes how content anindividualis with his /her job. The happier people are within their job, the more satisfied they are said to be. Job satisfaction is not the same asmotivationoraptitude, although it is clearly linked.Job designaims to enhance job satisfaction and performance, methods includejob rotation,job enlargement,job enrichmentandjob re-engineering. Other influences on satisfaction include the management style and culture, employee involvement, empowerment and autonomous work position. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently measured by organizations. The most common way of measurement is the use of rating scales where employees report their reactions to their jobs. Questions relate to rate of pay, work responsibilities, variety of tasks, promotional opportunities, the work itself and co-workers. Some questioners ask yes or no questions while others ask to rate satisfaction on 1-5 scale (where 1 represents "not at all satisfied" and 5 represents "extremely satisfied").DefinitionJob satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job;an affective reaction to ones job;and an attitude towards ones job.Weiss (2002) has argued that job satisfaction is an attitude but points out that researchers should clearly distinguish the objects of cognitive evaluation which are affect (emotion), beliefs and behaviours.This definition suggests that we form attitudes towards our jobs by taking into account our feelings, our beliefs, and our behaviors.HistoryOne of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (19241933), primarily credited toElton Mayoof theHarvard Business School, sought to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called theHawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in job satisfaction.Scientific management(akaTaylorism) also had a significant impact on the study of job satisfaction.Frederick Winslow Taylors 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor andpieceworktowards the more modern ofassembly linesandhourly wages. The initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. It should also be noted that the work of W.L. Bryan,Walter Dill Scott, andHugo Munsterbergset the tone for Taylors work.Some argue thatMaslows hierarchy of needstheory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories.Job satisfaction can also be seen within the broader context of the range of issues which affect an individual's experience of work, or theirquality of working life. Job satisfaction can be understood in terms of its relationships with other key factors, such as general well-being, stress at work, control at work, home-work interface, and working conditions.Models of job satisfactionAffect TheoryEdwin A. Lockes Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/arent met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesnt value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.Dispositional TheoryAnother well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional TheoryTemplate:JacksonApril 2007. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of ones job. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction.A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was theCore Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997.[5]Judge et al. argued that there are fourCore Self-evaluationsthat determine ones disposition towards job satisfaction:self-esteem, generalself-efficacy,locus of control, andneuroticism. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his/her self) and general self-efficacy (the belief in ones own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over her\his own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.Two-Factor Theory (Motivator-Hygiene Theory)Frederick HerzbergsTwo factor theory(also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplaceThis theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employees motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organizational goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench, p.133). Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities. These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out.Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions.While Hertzberg's model has stimulated much research, researchers have been unable to reliably empirically prove the model, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Hertzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact. Furthermore, the theory does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.Finally, the model has been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.[Job Characteristics ModelHackman & Oldham proposed theJob Characteristics Model, which is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact on job outcomes, including job satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results), in turn influencing work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work motivation, etc.).The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential score (MPS) for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's attitudes and behaviors----. Ameta-analysisof studies that assess the framework of the model provides some support for the validity of the JCM.Measuring job satisfactionThere are many methods for measuring job satisfaction. By far, the most common method for collecting data regarding job satisfaction is theLikert scale(named afterRensis Likert). Other less common methods of for gauging job satisfaction include: Yes/No questions, True/False questions, point systems, checklists, and forced choice answers. This data are sometimes collected using anEnterprise Feedback Management(EFM) system.TheJob Descriptive Index(JDI), created by Smith, Kendall, & Hulin (1969), is a specific questionnaire of job satisfaction that has been widely used. It measures ones satisfaction in five facets: pay, promotions and promotion opportunities, coworkers, supervision, and the work itself. The scale is simple, participants answer either yes, no, or cant decide (indicated by ?) in response to whether given statements accurately describe ones job.TheJob in General Indexis an overall measurement of job satisfaction. It is an improvement to the Job Descriptive Index because the JDI focuses too much on individual facets and not enough on work satisfaction in general.Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: theMinnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire(MSQ), the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), and theFaces Scale. The MSQ measures job satisfaction in 20 facets and has a long form with 100 questions (five items from each facet) and a short form with 20 questions (one item from each facet). The JSS is a 36 item questionnaire that measures nine facets of job satisfaction. Finally, the Faces Scale of job satisfaction, one of the first scales used widely, measured overall job satisfaction with just one item which participants respond to by choosing a face..Relationships and practical implicationsJob Satisfaction can be an important indicator of how employees feel about their jobs and a predictor of work behaviours such as organizational citizenship,absenteeism,andturnover.Further, job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and deviant work behaviors.One common research finding is that job satisfaction is correlated with life satisfaction.This correlation is reciprocal, meaning people who are satisfied with life tend to be satisfied with their job and people who are satisfied with their job tend to be satisfied with life. However, some research has found that job satisfaction is not significantly related to life satisfaction when other variables such as nonwork satisfaction and core self-evaluations are taken into account.An important finding for organizations to note is that job satisfaction has a rather tenuouscorrelationto productivity on the job. This is a vital piece of information to researchers and businesses, as the idea that satisfaction and job performance are directly related to one another is often cited in the media and in some non-academic management literature. A recentmeta-analysisfound an average uncorrected correlation between job satisfaction and productivity to ber= 0.18; the average true correlation, corrected for research artifacts and unreliability, was r = 0.30Further, the meta-analysis found that the relationship between satisfaction and performance can be moderated by job complexity, such that for high-complexity jobs the correlation between satisfaction and performance is higher (= 0.52) than for jobs of low to moderate complexity ( = 0.29). Job Satisfaction also have high relationship with intention to quit. It is found in many research that Job Satisfaction can lead to Intention to Stay / Quit in an organization (Kim et al., 1996). Recent research has also shown that Intention to Quit can have effect like poor performance orientation, organizational deviance, and poor organizational citizenship behaviours.[In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is not necessarily straightforward and can be influenced by a number of other work-related constructs, and the notion that "a happy worker is a productive worker" should not be the foundation of organizational decision-making.With regard to job performance, employeepersonalitymay be more important than job satisfaction.The link between job satisfaction and performance is thought to be aspurious relationship; instead, both satisfaction and performance are the result of personality.JOB PERFORMANCEIs a commonly used, yet poorly defined concept inindustrial and organizational psychology, the branch ofpsychologythat deals with the workplace. It's also part of Human Resources Management. It most commonly refers to whether a person performs theirjobwell. Despite the confusion over how it should be exactly defined, performance is an extremely important criterion that relates to organizational outcomes and success. Among the most commonly accepted theories of job performance comes from the work of John P. Campbell and colleagues.Coming from a psychological perspective, Campbell describes job performance as an individual level variable. That is, performance is something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance which are higher level variables.Features of job performanceThere are several key features to Campbell's conceptualization of job performance which help clarify what job performance means.

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

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

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

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

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