Assessing the Role of Motivation on

Employee Performance
By
[Name of student]
Project paper submitted in partial
ulfillment of the re!uirements
or the degree of
Master of Business Administration
[Name of university]
["ear]
Table of contents
#$AP%ER &'( )*%ERA%+RE RE,*E-.................................................................................../
2.1. What is motivation?..........................................................................................................3
2.2. Motivation Theory............................................................................................................4
2.3. McGregor Theory X and Theory Y 1!"#$.......................................................................%
2.4. &braham 'arold Maslo()s Theory of *eed 2##1$.........................................................+
2.%. ,rederic- 'er.berg)s 'ygiene and Motivational ,actors Theory 1!"#$........................."
2.+. /ntrinsic and e0trinsic motivation....................................................................................."
2.". The relationshi1 bet(een intrinsic and e0trinsic motivation............................................2
2.2. 3erformance in organi.ations............................................................................................!
2.!. 4ob 1erformance................................................................................................................!
2.1#. Meas5ring 6ob 1erformance.........................................................................................11
2.11. The lin- bet(een em1loyee motivation and 6ob 1erformance....................................12
References.....................................................................................................................................01
2
#$AP%ER &'( )*%ERA%+RE RE,*E-
2.1. What is motivation?
Greenberg and 7aron 2###8 1.1!#$ state that motivation can be classified into three main
segments. The first segment refers to the aro5sal of the sense of motivation (hich drives the
individ5al to the goals and ob6ectives. The energy of the em1loyee is also referred to the first
1art. The second segment refers to the different and varying choices that 1eo1le ma-e for
directing their tas-s and 5ltimately their behaviors. The last segment of motivation sho(s the
level of maintenance of the motivation in an individ5al8 that ho( long he or she can be motivated
for achieving the desired goals. &ccording to 9inder 1!!28 1.3$8 motivation can be defined as
the 1sychological 1rocess (hich generates a 15r1ose in an individ5al in terms of behavior and
direction. /n other (ords8 motivation is a 1redis1osition for behaving 15r1osef5lly for achieving
1artic5lar 5nmet needs8 an 5nsatisfied need8 and the (ill to achieve8 res1ectively. &s 1er the
e01lanation of Yo5ng 2###8 1.1$8 motivation can be defined in several (ays8 de1ending 51on the
1erson as-ed. This clearly means that motivation has different meaning to different 1eo1le. Th5s
Yo5ng 2###8 1.1$ mentioned that motivation is a sort of force (ithin an individ5al (hich
reflects the amo5nt8 direction and 1erseverance of endeavor e0ha5sted at (or-.
&ccording to 'ale1ota 2##%8 1.1+$8 motivation is an individ5al)s active res1onse and
1artici1ation (ithin any (or-ing set51 for achieving the 1rescribed res5lts. 'e f5rther mentions
motivation as abstract since it has different res5lts in different circ5mstances8 and that there is no
single or s1ecific strategy for achieving the favorable res5lts. &ntomioni 1!!!8 1.2!$ mentions
that the level of effort (hich 1eo1le thro( in their (or- at 6ob de1ends 51on their satisfaction
and motivation levels. /ndivid5als feel and get de:motivated (hen they feel that something or
someone is to11ing them from achieving their res5lts.
The above mentioned definitions regarding the core conce1t of motivation sho( that it is
related solely to the factors (hich moves and drives the actions of individ5als8 (hich hel1s them
in achieving their 1rescribed goals and th5s contrib5ting to their organi.ations. The definitions
s5ggest that motivation is an invisible force (hich 15shes 1eo1le to do something in ret5rn for
their res1ective organi.ations. The role of the management is very im1ortant to consider here in
the conte0t o motivation8 since the environment of an organi.ation is the element (hich either
motivated or de motivated the individ5als (or-ing (ithin. The factors associated (ith the
3
environment are several and the most im1ortant of them are c5lt5re of the organi.ation8 str5ct5re
of the organi.ation8 recognition system of the organi.ation and the trans1arency bet(een the
different hierarchies of the organi.ation. /t is fact that maintain a highly motivate staff is an
immense challenge for the modern organi.ations these days. This is beca5se of the fact that
motivation is not a fi0ed attrib5te8 and it can change (ith the changes in the sit5ation or (ith the
changes ion the organi.ation. ,inancial and social factors of an organi.ation also 1lay a vital role
in the conte0t of having a motivated staff.
2.2. Motivation Theory
'aving a motivated and a ;5alified (or-ing staff is vital for increasing the 1rod5ctivity
and the ;5ality of the o1erations (hich are carried (ithin an organi.ation8 and they are cr5cial
for achieving the 1rescribed goals and ob6ectives of the organi.ation. The ma6or challenge in this
modern (orld is to fin 1ossible and effective methods (hich can hel1 in the develo1ment of a
motivated and efficient staff <ieleman and Toonen8 2##+=1$. /t is a fact that there are many
theories on the theme of motivation> ho(ever the a11lication of these theories effectively (ithin
an organi.ational setting to achieve the favorable res5lts is the main ;5est for the modern
organi.ations. The role of managers is very im1ortant here since they are the driving factors and
the role models (ithin any organi.ational setting <ieleman and Toonen 2##+=1$.
Motivation is a very cr5cial element for any organi.ation since the 1eo1le8 having the
best of the s-ills and the (idest of the -no(ledge (ill 1erform 1oorly if they are not motivated
'arris in Mila1o8 2##1= 2!$. ?very individ5al8 as a 1art of a (or-ing staff8 has his o(n needs
(hich sho5ld be 1rovided by the (or-1lace so that the de:motivation of the em1loyees can be
avoided. 'aving a lac- of motivation in the (or-ing staff res5lts in fre;5ent absenteeism8 anti:
(or- attit5des8 intentional irres1onsibility8 late coming8 fail5res in deadline meeting8 o1en
dis1lay of aggravation. &ll of these factors are very harmf5l for any organi.ation since they are
directly associated (ith the 1oor 1erformance of the em1loyees8 and 5ltimately the 1oor
1erformance of the organi.ation on the (hole. The credibility of an organi.ation is directly
de1endant on the levels of motivated (hich members are there among the staff. Th5s8 to avoid
all of these factors8 an organi.ation m5st ens5re that all the efforts are 15t in for motivating the
staff8 s5ch as intrinsic motivators8 e0trinsic motivators and an attractive 1erformance
management system8 for retaining the satisfaction and the loyalty of the em1loyees.
4
2.3. McGregor Theory X and Theory Y (1970
McGregor develo1ed t(o discrete fi0ed insights of ho( an individ5al observes h5man
1erformance at em1loyment and e0ec5tive life. 'e fo5nd that the organi.ations 5s5ally ado1t
one of the t(o contrasting a11roaches8 and th5s called these o11osing a11roaches as theory X
and theory Y. he mentions that in theory X8 organi.ing the 1rod5ctive elements of an
organi.ation is the res1onsibility of the management of that organi.ation. These 1rod5ctive
elements incl5de the financials8 reso5rces and the em1loyees. The economic trend sho5ld be met
thro5gh this. 'e mentioned that the em1loyees have an innate disli-ing for their (or- in
organi.ations.
Th5s the attit5des of the em1loyees (ithin an organi.ation sho5ld be driven thro5gh the
element of motivation8 so that every individ5al can fit to the needs of the organi.ation and the
goal of the organi.ation becomes the goal of every individ5al. 4ob sec5rity is the factors (hich
co5nts the most in this conte0t. McGregor foc5ses on the fact that h5mans have a la.y nat5re
to(ards their o(n initiative and th5s (ithin any organi.ational setting they sho5ld be 1ers5aded8
15shed8 re(arded8 controlled and directed by the management. The management)s role is to force
and manage its em1loyees. 9ac- of vigoro5s intervention in the management res5lts in resistance
to the needs of the organi.ation from the em1loyees8 and th5s the 1rod5ctivity of the
organi.ation are affected very badly.
@n the other hand theory Y instr5cts that management is charged (ith the acco5ntability
to systemati.e the elements of fr5itf5l vent5re s5ch as (ealth8 reso5rces8 a11arat5s and
em1loyees8 having the ob6ective to meet the economic trends. Wor- is a 5s5al and nat5ral thing
for 1eo1le and that they are not inert or o11osed to the needs of the organi.ation8 and are al(ays
ready to initiate self direction8 (hen dedicated to the aims. This ha11ens beca5se 1eo1le are
nat5rally not la.y in their attit5des. /n contrast to the Theory X8 this theory reflects that the
em1loyees are al(ays ready to acce1t their res1onsibilities all the time. 'o(ever8 1roviding the
em1loyees (ith the s5itable conditions and methods of o1eration is cr5cial for -ee1ing the
em1loyees committed to their tas-s. This hel1s them in achieving their 1rescribed goals and
ob6ectives8 via the direction of their toil to meet the organi.ational aims and ob6ectives.
7ased on the ass5m1tions of the theory Y8 the role of the management is to develo1 and
maintain the 1otential of the em1loyees8 for hel1ing them in releasing that latent to(ards the
%
accom1lishment of the 5niform goals. ,or managing the tas-s8 management 5tili.es the
ass5m1tions as g5idelines for leading to a diversity of 1otential that lies bet(een t(o e0tremes.
/n one of these e0treme cases8 the management can be hard and rigid and in the second e0treme8
the management can be 1olite and soft. Theory X is considered as the stand1oint that is ado1ted
by a 5s5al management8 (hile many organi.ations are no( foc5sing on ado1ting the Theory Y.
2.!. "#raham $aro%d Mas%o&'s Theory o( )eed (2001
The most famo5s classification of the needs of an organi.ation is develo1ed by Maslo(8
in (hich he develo1ed five core layers. These layers have been listed in order of im1ortance by
Maslo(8 namely 1hysiological needs> safety needs social needs8 esteem needs and self
f5lfillment needs. Maslo( (as of the belief that these needs are 5s5ally and often felt by the
1eo1le. Aelf com1letion is the 511ermost ti1 of Maslo()s theory of motivation8 and he mentions
that at this ti18 the desire of achieving the f5ll com1etency and s-ills is ind5ced (ithin by the
individ5als. 'e added that this needs is never com1letely satisfied as others can be satisfied. This
he foc5sed beca5se as em1loyees develo1 and gro( e01ressively8 the o11ort5nities to gro( also
evolve.
&fter achieving the sense of belonging s5ccessf5lly8 an em1loyee develo1s the (ill to
have a 1artic5lar degree of im1ortance (ithin the (or-1lace. This is associated (ith the desire of
having a strong and stable assessment of all the individ5als. Maslo( called this classification the
esteem need. @nce the 1hysiological needs are accom1lished an achieved s5ccessf5lly8 the
attention of an em1loyee then moves to(ards the sec5rity and safety for overcoming the danger
of cor1oreal and 1oignant com1le0ities. This theory mentions that if an em1loyee feels
threatened8 then the (ish to gratify that needs (ill increase8 and then all the other needs (ill not
be desired8 5ntil and 5nless this need is met.
&n individ5al re;5ires 3hysiological needs for satisfying the core basics of life8 e.g. air8
(ater8 food etc. th5s the needs of lo(er level m5st be satisfied for 15rs5ing the needs of higher
level. The arg5ment for this (hole theory is based on the fact that the self f5lfillment can never
be satisfies. The reason behind this is that the h5man is al(ays (anting more and th5s this need
can never be f5lfilled and can never be satisfies. 'o(ever8 this is the only need (hich can
motivate the behaviors of the em1loyees. /n this case8 the leading need is the one (hich com1els
one to act in order to f5lfill it. The lo(er levels of needs are tem1orary at times and lead the
+
motivation of individ5als. Th5s the managers and leaders of organi.ations sho5ld 5nderstand the
active needs (hich hel1 in creating em1loyee motivation.
2.*. +rederic, $er-#erg's $ygiene and Motivationa% +actors Theory (1970
'er.berg in his theory has foc5sed on t(o 5nderlined sets of motivational needs namely
men need as a creat5re to sh5n 1ain and as a h5man the need for 1sychological develo1ment.
'er.berg highlighted several factors in his theory (hich are similar to those of Maslo()s
hierarchy of needs. 'o(ever8 'er.berg)s theory is more dis1osed to the (or-ing s5rro5ndings
and environment. 'er.berg classified these elements into t(o ma6or ty1es8 hygiene factors
dissatisfies$ and motivators satisfiers$. 'ygiene factors8 as mentioned by him8 incl5de the
conditions8 1olicies of the organi.ation8 and the managerial 1ractices8 financials and
com1ensation benefits8 administration8 1osition8 6ob safety8 co:(or-ers and individ5al life8 (hile
gratit5de8 accom1lishment8 1rogression8 develo1ment8 acco5ntability and 6ob confront are
incl5ded in the motivators.
Breating an effective ins1iration is the core ability of the motivators (ithin any
organi.ational setting. The motivation is created for the individ5als for enabling them to 1erform
and deliver significant effort. @n the other hand8 dissatisfaction leads to an environment (here
the individ5als (ithin an organi.ation are com1elled to sho( anti:(or- behaviors d5e to lac- of
satisfaction of their needs. 'ygiene factors create the dissatisfied environment since they are the
factors (hich 65st allo( the em1loyees to ad65st8 (hile motivators are the elements (hich
facilitate the em1loyees for achieving their desired gro(th levels. 'er.berg mentions that the
identification of hygiene factors before the im1lementation of motivating factors is very cr5cial
since its g5ides the right 1ath to im1lement the motivational factors effectively. This means that
the hygiene factors m5st be f5lfilled first and then the motivational factors.
2... /ntrinsic and e0trinsic motivation
Acholars have divided motivation in t(o ma6or ty1es8 intrinsic and e0trinsic. &mabile
1!!3$ e01lains this as=
C /ntrinsic motivation is there in an organi.ation (hen the individ5als have the factors of
en6oyment8 attention8 a11roval of in;5isitiveness8 self:e01ression or 1ersonal challenge at
(or-.
"
C ?0trinsic motivation is there in an organi.ation (hen the individ5als are engaged in the
(or- for gaining their 1rescribed goals and ob6ectives8 (hich are a1art from the (or-
itself.
?0trinsic motivation has been defined by <eci 1!"2$ as8 financial and verbal s511ort8
arbitrated e0terior of the 1erson8 (hile intrinsic motivation is arbitrated (ithin the individ5al. &
1erson is 1rovided intrinsic motivation for 1erforming (hen there is no a11arent or 1hysical
re(ard e0ce1t the activity itself. &mabile 1!!3$ in his st5dy has mentioned that the em1loyees
can be either intrinsically motivated or e0trinsically motivated8 or both. Acholars have mentioned
that intrinsic and e0trinsic motivating factors are a11lied differently to different individ5als and
there are many factors (hich come into 1lay.
Droom 1!+4$ has arg5ed that some em1loyees val5ed intrinsic motivation8 (hile others
e0trinsic motivating factors8 de1ending 51on their 1ersonality. Atory et al. 2##!$8 mentioned that
the individ5als highly leaning to(ards intrinsic motivation are often in a state of challenging the
cognitive tas-s and have the ability to self reg5late their res1ective behaviors. Th5s8 offering
1ri.es and re(ards8 setting e0ternal ob6ectives8 meeting deadlines mean little to 1eo1le leaning
to(ards intrinsic motivation. ,or s5ch em1loyees8 the ma6or foc5s and em1hasis is on the
engaging nat5re of the 6ob and s511ort of self 1rescribed ob6ectives Atory et al.8 2##!$.
'ac-man and @ldham 1!"+$ have foc5sed on the fact that different 1eo1le behave
differently 5nder similar orts of conditions8 and this is based on the 51s and do(ns in the gro(th
need strength. 3eo1le having the 51s of gro(th need strength are 5s5ally motivated by the tas-s
(hich re;5ire high and com1le0 s-ills8 6ob identity8 and im1ortance of tas-8 inde1endence and
feedbac-. @n the other hand8 1eo1le having lo( gro(th need strength are 5s5ally insensitive for
these factors. ,5rnham et al. 1!!2$ s511ort this statement by mentioning that introverts are more
motivated e0trinsically and e0traverts are motivated more intrinsically. 'o(ever8 a1art from this8
there is also a lin- bet(een intrinsic and e0trinsic motivation and effect each other.
2.7. The re%ationshi1 #et&een intrinsic and e0trinsic motivation
The difference bet(een intrinsic and e0trinsic motivation is obvio5s. 'o(ever8 many
scholars in their st5dies have arg5ed that both of these ty1es of motivation have a strong lin-
(ith each other and that both affect each other significantly. <eci 1!"2$8 claims that e0trinsic
motivators can res5lt in a decrease of intrinsic motivators and this ha11ens 5nder some s1ecific
2
circ5mstances. 'e mentions that if the financials are administered contingently8 then there is a
decrease in the intrinsic motivation. 'o(ever8 this (ill not ha11en if the financials are non:
contingently distrib5ted.
&mabile 1!!3$ adds in his conte0t that (hile e0trinsic and e0trinsic motivations are
o11osing to each other8 they can also have a strengthening effect. This means that once the
scaffolding of e0trinsic motivating factors is ta-en into acco5nt8 intrinsic motivation is ta-en
a5tomatically to higher levels of em1loyee satisfaction and 1erformance. &mabile also mentions
in her st5dy that both intrinsic and e0trinsic factors can motivate the em1loyees for 1erforming
their (or- effectively> ho(ever8 both of these ty1es of motivations have different effects on
different em1loyees.
2.2. 3er(ormance in organi-ations
3erformance in an organi.ation can be classified into organi.ational 1erformance and 6ob
1erformance @tley8 1!!!$. @tley mentions that the organi.ation)s 1erformance on the (hole is
dee1ly de1endent on the 1erformance of the em1loyees8 i.e. 6ob 1erformance. @ther im1ortant
factors incl5ding environment8 c5lt5re and str5ct5re of the organi.ation also 1lay a vital role in
this conte0t. The difference bet(een organi.ational 1erformance and 6ob 1erformance is evident.
&n organi.ation that is 1erforming (ell is al(ays achieving its ob6ectives s5ccessf5lly. This
means that a s5ccessf5l organi.ation im1lements effective strategies (hich hel1 in the
achievement of its goals. 4ob 1erformance is a res5lt of an em1loyees (or-8 (hether it is 1ositive
or negative '5nter8 1!2+$.
2.9. 4o# 1er(ormance
?ffective em1loyee 1erformance is a m5st for all the organi.ations in this modern era.
This is necessary since the s5ccess of an organi.ation de1ends 51on the creativity and the o5t15t
generate by its em1loyees Eamlall8 2##2$. 7etter 1erformance of em1loyees and 1rod5ctivity
gro(th are also vital for stabili.ing the economy of an organi.ation8 by im1roving the standards
of living8 raising the (ages of the em1loyees8 increase in the facilities8 etc Griffin et al.8 1!21$.
They also arg5ed that the foc5s on individ5al em1loyee 1erformance is very cr5cial for the
society and for all the organi.ations8 es1ecially in this modern era. The 1rod5ction of em1loyees
and the 1erformance of the em1loyees are interlin-ed (ith each other. The meas5re of
1erformance of an em1loyee can be the n5mber of goods and the amo5nt of facilities (hich are
!
availed by him. 'o(ever8 generally8 o5t15t is 5s5ally lin-ed (ith the 1rod5ction:oriented terms.
These terms incl5de 1rofit and t5rnover8 and the effort is related (ith the efficiency or terms
(hich are decision:ma-ing ratings and ob6ective achievements 3inc5s8 1!2+$.
'5nter and '5nter 1!24$ mentions that the ability of the em1loyee is a cr5cial element
in any organi.ational setting for meas5ring the em1loyee and 6ob 1erformances. The em1loyee
sho5ld have the ability to deliver the best o5tcomes for the organi.ation by sho(ing high and
effective 1rod5ctivity. They also arg5e that this is an element that the management of
organi.ations -no(s at their forehands. Th5s they can hire the em1loyees (ho have the re;5ired
abilities. The 5se of em1loyee 1rofit sharing 1lans as an em1loyee com1ensation scheme has
increased significantly in the (or-1lace. /n the F.A.8 for e0am1le8 abo5t one in every fo5r
com1anies offers some ty1e of 1rofitGgain sharing 1lan. &lso8 several st5dies have fo5nd 1rofit
sharing as an effective com1ensation scheme e.g. Hr5se8 1!!3> Bheadle8 1!2!$. ?m1loyee 1rofit
sharing has been gaining 1o15larity as a means of em1loyee com1ensation beca5se it lin-s
em1loyee 1ayments to the com1anyIs financial 1erformance. 3rofit sharing 1ayments are affected
by changes in the firmIs earnings and affect both the income and cash flo( statements.
&dditionally8 the decision to select 1rofit sharing among available com1ensation schemes
re;5ires a caref5l analysis of the com1anyIs earnings 1otential and affect on income.
'o(ever8 acco5nting literat5re8 incl5ding acco5nting te0tboo-s8 have little disc5ssion of
the effect that em1loyee 1rofit sharing has on the acco5nting system and financial statements.
The need for s5ch a disc5ssion is even more necessary for international acco5nting 1rofessionals
and 511er management since m5ltinational com1anies are faced (ith different social and legal
standards that may affect em1loyeesI o1inions abo5t 1rofit sharing 1lans and their effectiveness
on 1rod5ctivity. This 1a1er brings this ga1 closer by disc5ssing the motives for 1rofit sharing
ado1tion in *orth &merica F.A. and Banada$ and the F.H. and the reasons for the differences
among them. These co5ntries (ere selected since they are among the largest economies in the
(orld and (here many m5ltinational firms have o1erations. ,5rther8 these co5ntries are similar
socially and c5lt5rally8 s5ch similarities minimi.ing the affect of vario5s non:economical factors
on the selection 1rocess. This is an im1ortant iss5e since different motives for 1rofit sharing8 and
the so5rces of those differences8 co5ld affect the o5tcome of financial analysis.
1#
2.10. Meas5ring 6o# 1er(ormance
&ccording to the data that (as 15blished by Hosti5- and ,ollmann 1!2!$8 the best
method to meas5re the 1erformance of the em1loyees is thro5gh the s51ervisory ratings b5t on
the other hand he has arg5ed that the data can be 5sed 1ro1erly since it is not s5b6ective for the
identified 15r1ose. 7isho1 1!2!$ has f5rther e01lained that ma0im5m 6obs do not highlight
ob6ect matter of the 1rod5ctivity of the em1loyees. While investigating the 1erformance system
7iso1 1!2!$ concl5ded that that the em1loyees can 1erform more consistently (hen the
conditions in the (or- 1lace are stable. 'e also co5nter:investigated the statement identifying
that (or-ing condition are never consistent or stable. /t also then s5b6ected to the 1erformance of
the em1loyees e01laining that it is not easier to meas5re 1erformances ob6ectively. &ccording to
3erry and 3orter 1!22$ it is easier to find and calc5late the 1erformance of the em1loyees and
therefore sho5ld be meas5red in a traditional (ay in s1ite there is an absence of general criteria
of meas5rement.
3erry and 3orter 1!22$ and 7isho1 1!2!$ bo5t h have investigated in their researches
that there is a need to find the sol5tion for ob6ective meas5ring. ,5rther it has been e01lained by
7isho1 1!2!$ that the most of the em1loyers have e01lained that there is a method to rate the
em1loyee)s 1erformance and 1rod5ctivity8 and that it is done in an inefficient manner. 7isho1
1!2!$ f5rther e01lained that the system to meas5re the 1erformance is not im1ossible b5t on the
other hand8 it is e01ensive eno5gh to collect all the information related to the 1erformance and
the 1rod5ctivity of the em1loyees. /n the 1ast researcher it has been fo5nd that the 1ersonality of
a 1erson also im1act on the 1erformance of the em1loyees 7arric- J Mo5nt8 1!!1$.on the other
hand it is diffic5lt to assess the im1act of characteristics and ed5cation on the 1erformance of the
em1loyees beca5se these factor can be meas5re of calc5lated 1recisely and the 1ast research
models e01laining it has been re6ected since they tend to be invalid Hosti5- J ,ollmann8 1!2!$.
Moreover8 they also e01lained that there 1ersonality of an individ5al 1lay a central in order to
identify the 1erformance of the 1erson. Therefore it can be s5mmari.ed that the 6ob 1erformance
contains a meas5re 1roblem (hen the factor of 1ersonality. /t has been fo5nd that the 6ob
1erformance is meas5red thro5gh the s51ervisory ratings b5t on the other hand these rating are
not identified as ob6ective. Moreover8 it is f5rther ass5med that there is a 1ossibility to find he
alternatives for meas5ring 6ob 1erformance.
11
2.11. The %in, #et&een em1%oyee motivation and 6o# 1er(ormance
The h5man relations theory 1ro1oses the significance of the correlation bet(een
motivation and individ5al 1erformance ,illey et al.8 1!"+$. The relation bet(een em1loyee
motivation and the conse;5ent 1erformance has been foc5sed a lot by many scholars in the 1ast
st5dies. 'o(ever8 a direct c5m 1ositive correlation bet(een the t(o has not been considerably
e01lained in any of the st5dies Droom8 1!+4$. Yet8 it is obvio5s that motivation and 6ob
1erformance are the factors (hich affect each other. 3etty et al. 1!24$ revie(ed the 1% st5dies
(hich (ere 5sed in the research by Droom 1!+4$8 and they added more st5dies to it8 for dra(ing
o5t an obvio5s concl5sion. The concl5sion (as that the em1loyee motivation and 1erformance at
(or- are indeed correlated. The res5lts of their st5dy sho(ed that there is a strong relation
bet(een individ5al 1erformance8 overall 6ob 1erformance and motivation levels.
'ac-man and @ldham 1!"+$ mentioned that em1loyee motivation has a circ5lar
relationshi1 (ith the 6ob 1erformance and 6ob satisfaction ,illey et al.8 1!"+$. Acholars have
clearly mentioned that (hen there are intrinsic motivational factors 1resent in any (or-ing
environment8 then attaining the motivation of the em1loyees is 1ossible8 beca5se satisfaction
achievement is ;5ite easy 5nd s5ch environment. &mabile 1!!3$ mentions that the 1erformance
of an individ5al solely de1ends 51on the level of motivation8 and that the levels of motivation are
based 51on (ither intrinsic or e0trinsic factors. /t is also mentioned that some of the
characteristics of 6ob are very im1ortant in develo1ing a relation bet(een em1loyee motivation
and 6ob 1erformance.
7rass 1!21$ in his st5dy has mentioned that the availability or the 1resence of certain
characteristics of 6ob in an organi.ation ma-es the ready availability of motivation8 and
conse;5ently an increase in the 1erformance of the em1loyees is noticeable. The characteristics
of 6ob here mean some 1artic5lar attrib5tes and dimensions (hich are 5sed for defining different
ty1es of tas-s Griffin et al.8 1!21$. ,ive 6ob characteristics have been mentioned and e01lained
by 'ac-man and @ldham 1!"+$8 based on the T(o:,actor Theory from 'er.berg 1!%!$. These
five characteristics are= ability diversity8 6ob identity8 tas- meaning8 inde1endence and reaction.
The res5lts of the st5dy of 'ac-man and @ldham 1!"+$ sho(ed clearly that the em1loyees (ho
scored high in all of these five characteristics had higher levels of motivation in them and
conse;5ently (ere 15tting in more efforts in their (or-. This increased the 1erformance of the
em1loyees (hich sho(s a direct correlation bet(een the motivation of an em1loyee and the
12
1erformance of an em1loyee after 1erceiving motivation. The design of the (or- can motivate
the em1loyees (ithin any sort of organi.ational setting.
The five 6ob characteristics as mentioned above can res5lt in an em1loyee)s three critical
1sychological states. These states are -no(ledgeable meaningf5lness of the 6ob8 e01erienced
sense of res1onsibility for the res5lts of the 6ob and the -no(ledge of the act5al 6ob and (or-
related activities 'ac-man J @ldham8 1!"+$. These states al(ays lead an em1loyee to high
levels of motivation8 6ob satisfaction and 6ob 1erformance. They also arg5e that the need of
gro(th of an em1loyee has a very strong relationshi1 (ith the 6ob 1erformance. They mentioned
that an em1loyee having high levels of gro(th need (ill 15t in more efforts in his 6ob and (ill
1erform better than an em1loyee having relatively lo(er levels of desire of gro(th and
develo1ment.
The gro(th need force has a reasonable effect on the motivation levels. This has also
been arg5ed by ,5rnham et al. 1!!2$ as they mention that 1ersonality varies in e0tent o ho( an
individ5al reacts to both intrinsic and e0trinsic val5es. Their research concl5ded that e0trinsic
factors (ere of more im1ortance for the introverts and that e0traverts (ere more motivated
thro5gh intrinsic factors. This means that introverts are less satisfied than e0traverts. This
mentioned that there is a significant connection bet(een an individ5al)s 1ersonality and 6ob
1erformance8 since the (ays of getting motivated are different for different sorts of 1ersonalities
Gray8 1!"%$. The e0act relation bet(een satisfaction8 motivation and 1erformance has not been
clearly de1icted8 ho(ever8 3etty et al. 1!24$ mention that the relationshi1 bet(een the three is a
circ5lar one and its starts from a high 1erformance (hich 5ltimately brings the satisfaction. They
concl5ded that (hen an em1loyee 1erformance (ell on 6ob8 the satisfaction (ill be there.
The internal satisfaction of an em1loyee motivates him to 1erform (ell in the
organi.ation8 and ma-ing his efforts co5nt for his organi.ation in ret5rn. This motivation is
bro5ght in an effective (ay thro5gh an effective re(ard and recognition system8 having a so5nd
and trans1arent 1erformance management system8 and marinating a s5itable environment (here
the em1loyee feels has the a5tonomy. 'ac-man and @ldham 1!"+$ mention that the res5lt is a
self:reinforcing cycle of motivation at (or-8 (hich is 1o(ered by self generated recom1enses8
(hich (ill contin5e 5ntil one of the three 1sychological stages is no longer 1resent in the
individ5al. The theory of 'ac-man and @ldham)s 1!"+$ is effectively based 51on the intrinsic
motivational factors since they believe that increasing e0trinsic factors does not increase the
13
motivation in the em1loyees. 'o(ever8 other st5dies have sho(n that self:reinforcing circle also
(or-s for e0trinsic factors. Th5s8 the concl5sion can be dra(n o5t in a (ay that the relationshi1
bet(een the em1loyee motivation and em1loyee 1erformance at (or- is circ5lar and that it starts
by a high level of 1erformance res5lting in the satisfaction of em1loyees. This satisfaction hel1s
in develo1ing motivation among the em1loyees. This circ5lar lin- bet(een the motivation and
6ob 1erformance is develo1ed by 1erforming high on the scale of the mentioned five 6ob
characteristics. Aome other st5dies have also sho(n that motivation can b achieved by
im1lementing certain e0trinsic factors.
14
References
&mabile8 T. M. 1!!3$. Motivational synergy= to(ard ne( conce1t5ali.ations of intrinsic and
e0trinsic motivation in the (or-1lace. '5man Eeso5rce Management Eevie(8 3 3$8
11.12%:2#1
&ntomioni8 <. 1!!!$. What motivates middle managers? Industrial Management8 *ov8<ec8 Dol.
418 *o +8 11. 2":3#.
7arric-8 M. E. J Mo5nt8 M. H. 1!!1$. The big five 1ersonality dimensions and 6ob
1erformance= a meta:analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44.
7isho18 4. '. 1!2!$. The recognition and re(ard of em1loyee 1erformance.
7rass8 <. 4. 1!21$. Eelationshi1s8 4ob Bharacteristics8 and Wor-er Aatisfaction and 3erformance.
Administrative Science Quarterly8 2+ 3$8 11.331:342.
<eci8 ?. 9. J Eyan8 E. M. 2##2$. ,acilitating o1timal motivation and 1sychological (ell:being
across life)s domains. Canadian Psychology8 4!8 11.14K23.
<eci8 ?. 9. 1!"2$. The effects of contingent and non:contingent re(ards and controls on
intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance8 28 11.21":22!.
<ieleman8 M. et.al 2##+$.The Match bet(een Motivation and 3erformance Management on
'ealth Aectors in Mali8 retrieved from= htt1=GG(((.h5manreso5rces:
health.comGcontentG4G1G2
,illey8 &. B.8 'o5se8 E. 4.8 J Herr8 A. 1!"+$. Managerial 1rocess and organi.ational behavior.
Glenvie(8 /ll.= Scott, oresman.
,5rnham8 &. 1!!4$. 3ersonality at (or-. 9ondon= !outledge"
,5rnham8 &.8 ,orde8 9. J ,errari8 H. 1!!2$. 3ersonality and (or- motivation. Personality and
individual differences8 2+8 11.1#3%:1#43.
Gray8 4. 1!"%$. ?lements of a t(o:1rocess theory of learning. #ondon$ Academic Press"
Greenberg 4 J7aron &.E 2##3$. L7ehavio5r in @rganisationsM8 Prentice Hall8 Dol. 28 11. 122:
21%
Griffin8 E. W.8 Welsh8 &. J Moorhead8 G. 1!21$. 3erceived Tas- Bharacteristics and ?m1loyee
3erformance= & 9iterat5re Eevie(. Academy of Management !evie%8 + 4$8 11.+%%:++4.
'ac-man8 4. E. J @ldham8 G. E. 1!"+$. Motivating thro5gh the design of (or-. @rgani.ational
7ehavior and '5man 3erformance8 1+8 11.2%#:2"!.
1%
'ele1ota8 '.&. 2##%$. Motivational Theories and their a11lication in constr5ction8 Cost
&ngineering8 Dol. 4"8 *o. 38 11.14:3%.
'er.berg8 ,. 1!++$. Wor- and the *at5re of Man8 Bleveland= 'orld Pu(lishing Com)any"
'er.berg8 ,. 1!++$. Wor- and the *at5re of Man. Bleveland8 OH$ 'orld
'5nter8 4. ?. 1!2+$. Bognitive &bility8 Bognitive &1tit5des8 4ob Hno(ledge8 and 4ob
3erformance. *ournal of +ocational Behavior8 2!8 11.34#:3+2.
'5nter8 4.?. J '5nter8 E.,. 1!24$. Dalidity and Ftility of &lternative 3redictors of 4ob
3erformance. Psychological Bulletin8 !+ 1$8 11."2:!2.
Hosti5-8 3. ,. J ,ollmann8 <. &. 1!2!$. 9earning B5rves8 3ersonal Bharacteristics8 and 4ob
3erformance. *ournal of
Hraimer8 M. 9.8 Wayne8 A. 4.8 9iden8 E. B. J A1arro(e8 E. T. 2##%$. The role of 6ob sec5rity in
5nderstanding the relationshi1 bet(een em1loyees) 1erce1tions of tem1orary (or-ers and
em1loyees) 1erformance. *ournal of A))lied Psychology8 !# 2$8 11.32!:3!2.
#a(or &conomics8 " 2$.
9indner8 4.E8 1!!2$. Fnderstanding em1loyee MotivationM8 *ournal of &,tension8 45ne8 Dol.
*o38 11.1:2
Maslo(8 &. 1!%4$ Motivation and 1ersonality. *e( Yor-= Har)er !o%.
Maslo(8 &. '. 1!43$. & theory of h5man motivation. Psychological !evie%8 %#8 11.3"#:3!+.
McGregor8 <. 1!%"$. 3roceedings of the ,ifth &nniversary Bonvocation of the Achool of
/nd5strial Management8 the '5man Aide of ?nter1rise. Massachusetts Institute of
-echnology.
@tley8 <. 1!!!$. 3erformance management= a frame(or- for management control systems
research. Management Accounting !esearch8 1#8 11.3+3:322.
3erry8 4. 9. J 3orter8 9. W. 1!22$. ,actors affecting the conte0t for motivation in 15blic
organi.ations. Academy of Management !evie%8 " 1$8 11.2!:!2.
3etty8 M. M.8 McGee8 G. W. J Bavender8 4. W. 1!24$. & meta:analysis of the relationshi1s
bet(een individ5al 6ob satisfaction and individ5al 1erformance. Academy of
Management !evie%8 ! 4$8 11."12:"21.
3inc5s8 4. <. 1!2+$. Bomm5nication satisfaction8 6ob satisfaction8 and 6ob 1erformance. Human
Communication !esearch8 12 3$8 11.3!%:41!.
1+
Atory8 3. &.8 'art8 4. W8 Atasson8 M. ,. J Mahoney 4. M. 2##2$. Fsing a t(o:factor theory of
achievement motivation to e0amine 1erformance:based o5tcomes and self:reg5latory
1rocesses. Personality and Individual differences8 4+8 11.3!1:3!%.
Droom8 D.'. J <eci8 ?.9. 1!"#$. &n overvie( of (or- motivation. Management and
motivation8 11.!:1!.
Droom8 D.'. 1!+4$. Wor- and motivation. *e( Yor-= 'iley"
Wood8 E. 2###$.Wor- Motivation= Theory8 Eesearch and 3ractice /ntrod5ction to the A1ecial
/ss5e8 *ournal of A))lied Psychology 4!8 11.31":312.
Yo5ng8 7.B. 2###$8 Methods of Motivating= Yesterday and Today8 &vailable at=
htt1=GGacedemic.em1ria.ed5.
1"