REVIEW OF MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES

Abstract

Human resources are the most important among all the resources owned by any organization.

As organizations continue to face mounting competitive pressures, they seek to do it with

less, and do it with better quality. To retain efficient and experienced workforce in an

organization is extremely crucial in overall performance of an organization. Motivated

employees can help make an organization competitively more value added and profitable.

This paper provides human resource professionals with a broad understanding of the

importance of pay in motivating employees and in improving their productivity. A new

motivational model has been proposed for the organizations belonging to the IT sector in this

paper. Limitations and guidelines for future research are also provided.

Keywords

Motivation, human, resource, IT sector

1. Introduction

In organizations, motivating people is a highly researched subject as it contributes to both the

quality of working life and the productivity of the organization. Consequently, it is extremely

important for managers to perform a vital role of identifying what motivates an individual,

create an environment to positively support and meet the needs of employees. The present

study is an attempt to find out the applications of certain motivational theories and also the

major factors that motivate employees. The various theories of motivation that have been

considered for this study are given below:

1.1 McClellands Theory of Needs

McClelland, a Psychologist, developed this theory in the late 1940‘s whose research shows

motives are acquired by an association with an internal state of positive or negative affect and

that once an external or internal cue, becomes associated with, and results in a motive.(Trash

& Elliott, 1985). McClelland (1985) describes motivation as the end product of all forms

of action and is anything that influences the tendency to respond. David McClelland, in his

acquired-needs theory, proposed that an individual's specific needs are acquired over time

and are shaped by one's life experiences. Most of these needs can be classified as either of the

three, namely, achievement, affiliation, or power. A person's motivation and effectiveness in

certain job functions are influenced by these three needs.

Need for Achievement: Characteristics of a person high in achievement are competition,

imagery and high investment. People with a high need for achievement seek to excel and thus

tend to avoid both low-risk and high-risk situations. Achievers avoid low-risk situations

because according to them, the easily attained success is not a genuine achievement. They

need regular feedback in order to monitor the progress of their achievements. They prefer

either to work alone or with other high achievers.

Need for Affiliation: A need for relating to others for opportunities to communicate and

spend time with (Wood et al, 2010). Those with a high need for affiliation need harmonious

relationships with other people and need to feel accepted by other people. They tend to

conform to the norms of their work group. Individuals with traits of high affiliation prefer

work that provides significant personal interaction. They perform well in customer service

and client interaction situations.

Need for Power: A person's need for power can be one of two types, namely, personal and

institutional. Those who need personal power want to direct others, and this need often is

perceived as undesirable. Persons who need institutional power (also known as social power)

want to organize the efforts of others to further the goals of the organization. Managers with a

high need for institutional power tend to be more effective than those with a high need for

personal power.

1.2 Equity Theory

According to equity theory, it is the perception of equitability and in-equitability that

motivates people to work. Equity theory focuses on two sides: the input and the outcome. An

employee compares his or her job‘s inputs with an outcomes ratio. Many times inequities can

lead to an increase in absenteeism and sometimes resignation of an organization (Greenberg,

1999). Equity theory deals with human motives and has wide applications in understanding

organizational behaviour. The Human Resources Development Team of an organisation takes

equity theory under serious consideration when dealing with people, whether in cases of

administering simple tasks like pay, promotions, and recognition or in cases of training,

improvements, and development. Equity theory will help HRD explain employee‘s behaviour

and provide them with the possible factors that might decrease efficiency and performance.

In this paper, equity theory has been examined in regard to pay, assuming that it is one of the

most important factors responsible for satisfaction and motivation of the employee. This

paper will provide human resource professionals with a broad understanding of the

importance of pay in motivating employees and in improving their productivity.

1.3 Expectancy Theory

Developed by Victor Vroom, expectancy theory predicts how much effort a person will exert

to achieve a task (Wood et al, 2010), is from an individual decision making basis model

(Geiger & Cooper, 1996) which is determined by a person‘s beliefs about effort-performance

relationship and work outcomes (Wood et al, 2010).This theory is called a process theory,

which is based on understanding the cognitive processes a person uses that influences their

behaviour. This includes a person‘s beliefs and reasoning for needing rewards to fill desired

needs (Wood et al, 2010).

Vroom's expectancy theory assumes that the behaviour of the person results from conscious

choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain.

Vroom realized that an employee's performance is based on individual factors such as skills,

knowledge, personality, experience and abilities. He stated that effort, performance and

motivation are linked in a person's motivation, and thus, used the variables Expectancy,

Instrumentality and Valence to account for this.

Expectancy is the belief that increased effort will lead to increased performance. It refers to

employees‘ different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of

doing – the belief that effort will lead to first order outcomes.

Instrumentality refers to the perception of employees whether they will actually receive what

they desire, even if it has been promised by a manager. It is the perceived link between first

order and second order outcomes.

1.4 Job Characteristic Model

The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) was designed to evaluate and improve the ―jobs‖ of

those employed by others. The primary purpose was to diagnose the existing jobs, and

evaluate the effects of job changes on employees for outcomes such as productivity,

motivation and satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). This approach focused on the work

of the job itself as opposed to other job design focused perspectives (Hackman & Oldham,

1980).

1.5 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow in his

1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" in Review. According to him if people grew in

an environment in which their needs are not met, they will be unlikely to function as healthy

individuals or well-adjusted individuals.

Maslow theorised that people have five types of needs and that these are activated in a

hierarchical manner. This means that these needs are aroused in a specific order from lowest

to highest, such that the lowest-order need must be fulfilled, before the next order need is

triggered and the process continues. According to Maslow we need to know where a person is

on the hierarchical pyramid in order to motivate him/her. Then we need to focus on meeting

that person‘s needs at that level (Robbins, 2001).

Below is a summary of these needs that in this thesis are divided into Hygiene needs

(Physiological, safety, social needs) and Growth needs (esteem, self-actualisation needs).

Physiological needs are the needs at the bottom of the triangle. This includes the need to

satisfy the fundamental biological drives such as food, air, water and shelter. According to

Maslow says, organisations must provide employees with a salary that enable them to afford

adequate living conditions. The rationale here is that any hungry employee will hardly be

able to make much of any contribution to his organisation.

Safety needs occupies the second level of needs. Safety needs are activated after

physiological needs are met. They refer to the need for a secure working environment, free

from any threats or harms. The rationale is that employees working in an environment free of

harm do their jobs without fear of harm.

Social needs represent the third level of needs. They are activated after safety needs are met.

Esteem needs represent the fourth level of needs. It includes the need for self-respect and

approval of others. Organisations introduce awards banquets to recognise distinguished

achievements.

Self-actualisation needs occupy the last level at the top of the triangle. This refers, need to

become all that one is capable of being to develop ones fullest potential. The rationale here

holds to the point that self-actualised employees represent valuable assets to the organisation

human resource.

1.6 Goal Setting Theory

According to the theory, there are two cognitive determinants of behaviour: values and

intentions (goals). A goal is defined simply as what the individual is consciously trying to do.

Locke and Latham postulate that the form in which one experiences one‘s value judgments is

emotional. That is, one‘s values create a desire to-do things consistent with them. Goals also

affect behaviour (job performance) through other mechanisms. Goals motivate people to

develop strategies that will enable them to perform at the required goal levels. Finally,

accomplishing the goal can lead to satisfaction and further motivation, or frustration and

lower motivation if the goal is not accomplished.

Goals Need to Be Specific: Organization members perform at higher levels when asked to

meet a specific high-performance goal. Specific goals (often quantified) let organization

members know what to reach for and allow them to measure their own progress.

Goals Must Be Difficult but Attainable: A goal that is too easily attained will not bring

about the desired increments in performance. The key point is that a goal must be difficult as

well as specific for it to raise performance. However, there is a limit to this effect. Although

organization members will work hard to reach challenging goals, they will only do so when

the goals are within their capability. As goals become too difficult, performance suffers

because organization members reject the goals as unreasonable and unattainable. A major

factor in attainability of a goal is self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). This is an internal belief

regarding one‘s job-related capabilities and competencies. If employees have high self

efficacies, they will tend to set higher personal goals under the belief that they are attainable.

The first key to successful goal setting is to build and reinforce employees ‗self-efficacy.

Goals Must Be Accepted: Goals need to be accepted. Simply assigning goals to organization

members may not result in their commitment to those goals, especially if the goal will be

difficult to accomplish. A powerful method of obtaining acceptance is to allow organization

members to participate in the goal-setting process. Some individuals may reject imposed

goals, but if they have self-efficacy, they may still maintain high personal goals to

accomplish the imposed goals (Bandura, 1997).

Feedback Must Be Provided on Goal Attainment: Feedback helps organization members

attain their performance goals. Feedback helps in two important ways. First, it helps people

determine how well they are doing. For example, sports teams need to know the score of the

game; a sharpshooter needs to see the target; a golfer needs to know his score. The same can

be said for a work team, department, or organization. Performance feedback tends to

encourage better performance. Second, feedback also helps people determine the nature of

the adjustments to their performance that are required to improve.

Deadlines Improve the Effectiveness of Goals: For most employees, goals are more

effective when they include a deadline for completion. Deadlines serve as a time-control

mechanism and increase the motivational impact of goals. Being aware that a deadline is

approaching, the typical employee will invest more effort into completing the task. In

contrast, if plenty of time remains for attaining the goal, the employee is likely to slow down

his or her pace to fill the available time. However, when deadlines are too tight, particularly

with complex tasks, the quality of work may suffer.

2. Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is to present an overview of the theories that explain

motivation in the workplace and address the factors that contribute to job satisfaction

(motivation) or cause job dissatisfaction. The various theories of motivation presented in this

paper focus on how each theory supports the other and how they are applicable in the

workplace. The three most important areas for motivation, namely, training and development,

appraisal, and compensation and benefits have been included.

2.1 McClelland’s Theory

Motivation plays an important role in today‘s work environment as motivated employees are

more productive employees. However, the ways in which the organization motivates its

employees have to be improved from time to time. ‗A motivational strategy is any effort to

induce employees to initiate and sustain activities that can directly or indirectly improve

service productivity‘ (Greiner 1986, p. 82). Motivation can have an effect on the output of

your business and concerns both quantity and quality.

McClelland proposed that an individual‘s particular needs are obtained over time as a result

of life experiences. Most of these needs fall into three general categories of needs which can

be class as need for achievement, affiliation or power. The strengths of the McClelland‘s

acquired needs theory is that it provides a clear picture for the organization and the managers

to know which type of job are suitable for the employees and which types of people that can

make the organizations more successful.

McClelland and Burnham have identified two types of power managers: those who seek

personal power and those who seek institutional power‘ (Lyden 1976, p. 201). However,

managers who seek for institutional power are more successful as they can create favourable

condition at work. Wagner and Swanson (1979, p. 66) have attributed the success of higher

power needs people to their ability to create a greater sense of responsibility and team spirit

in their organizations. This gives the organization, a clear picture of the employees that are

suitable to be promoted and become a manager. Therefore, management should provide

people with high need for power the opportunity to manage other. In addition, this will also

give the manager a guideline on how to become a good manager because as stated manager

who seek institutional power are more successful.

Furthermore, a major problem with affiliative managers is that due to the concern of the well-

being of the subordinates, he/she might be willing to make exceptions to the company‘s rule

in responding to his employees‘ needs, thus violating one of the bureaucracy‘s basic

principles of fairness (Lyden 1976, p. 201). However, this could be stated as a weakness for

the theory, as managers should not always look at fairness when judging, because different

situation require different types of decision. For example, two employees with different

situation at the same time wanting to apply for leave, one saying that he want to go for a

vacation and one saying that he needs to go back to his home town to attend his parent‘s

funeral. If the manager were to be fair both of the employees are not to be given any leave,

however the manager should act accordingly.

Besides that, the weaknesses of the McClelland‘s acquired needs theory is that it serves little

purpose in the public sector. As stated in the article, public sector employees are being

motivated by job security and stability, teamwork and worthwhile service to society, while

eschewing monetary rewards, prestige and the desire for challenge and autonomy

(Jurkiewicz, Massey & Brown 1998, p. 231). From here, we can see that public sector

employees are only high in affiliation and low in achievement and power. When this happen,

superiors will find it hard to delegate task and to create a competitive environment between

the employees in public sector, because they do not like challenging task and that most of

them are very high in affiliation which are suitable in providing customer service.

People with different needs should be motivated differently and this makes it extremely

important for the organisation to identify the type of employee, so that he can be motivated

using the appropriate methods. High achievers should be given challenging projects with

reachable goals, and provided frequent feedback. While money is not an important motivator,

it is an effective form of feedback. Employees with high affiliation need perform best in a

cooperative environment. On the other hand, management should provide power seekers the

opportunity to manage others.

A way of using McClelland‘s theories in organisational development could be through

analysing the employees needs and through that their personalities in order to create an

effective team, where each team member could do the best according to his or her needs.

People with a high need for affiliation identify themselves as good socialisers with

strong social skills. This can be shown by a test measure called the ‗affiliative choice

measure‘ where people are asked to rate how highly they liked doing fifteen different types of

activities with friends and how high they rated themselves in social situations (McClelland,

1985).

2.2 Equity theory

Studies bearing on equity theory divide conveniently into two groups: those studying the

effects of underpayment and those dealing with the effects of overpayment. Equity theory

suggests that employee perceptions of what they contribute to the organization, what they get

in return, and how their return-contribution ratio compares to others inside and outside the

organization,' determine how fair they perceive their employment relationship to be (Adams,

1963). Perceptions of inequity are expected to cause employees to take actions to restore

equity; such actions (e.g., quitting or lack of cooperation) may not be helpful to the

organization.

Two recent empirical studies provide good examples of the types of counterproductive

behaviours that can occur as a result of perceived inequity. In the first study,

Greenberg(1990) analysed how an organization communicated pay cuts to its employees, and

its effects on theft rates and perceived equity. In this study, two organization units received

15% across-the-board pay cuts. A third unit received no pay cut and served as a control

group. Also, the reasons for the pay cuts were communicated to the two pay-cut groups in

different ways. In the "adequate explanation" pay-cut group, the management expressed

remorse, and also provided a significant degree of information to explain its reasons for the

pay cut. In contrast, the group with "inadequate explanation" received much less information

and there was no indication of remorse for the same. The control group received no pay cut,

and thus no explanation was provided.

The control group and the two pay-cut groups began with the same theft rates and equity

perceptions. After the pay cut, the theft rate in the adequate explanation group was 54%

higher than in the control group. However, in the "inadequate explanation" condition, the

theft rate was 141% than in the control group. In this case, communication had a large and

independent effect on employees' attitudes and behaviours.

Cowherd and Levine (1992) used a sample 102 business units in 41 corporations to examine

whether the size of the pay differential between lower-level employees and top

management had any impact on product quality. According to Cowherd and Levine,

individuals often compare their pay to that of people higher in the organization structure. If

lower-level employees feel inequitably treated, they may seek to reduce their effort to achieve

equity. Quality was defined in their study as customer perceptions of the quality of goods and

services. They hypothesized that citizenship-behaviours, such as freely offering to help others

and correcting errors that would ordinarily escape notice, would be less likely if pay

differentials between hourly and top managerial employees were large. Their results

supported this hypothesis, thus suggesting that organizations need to take care of the potential

adverse motivational consequences of executive pay for the motivation of other employees.

Organizations are attempting to develop a work force that is self-managing and autonomous,

a sense of justice becomes even more essential as the glue that holds the organization

together and maintains teamwork (Cropanzano & Kacmar, 1995). The essential idea behind

equity theory is that when individuals work for an organization they present certain inputs

(e.g., abilities or job performance). Based on their input, people expect to get something in

return. For example, when people input high performance they expect to get a high pay level

(Cropanzano, 1993). Adams (1965) expressed this as a ratio of outcomes per inputs. The

difficult thing for workers is to determine when a given ratio is fair. Adams argued that

individuals determine fairness by comparing their ratio to the ratio of some comparison other;

this allows someone to see if a reasonable amount were obtained.

Equity theory predicts that low rewards produce dissatisfaction; this would in turn motivate

people to take action and reduce the discrepancy between their ratio and the ratio of the

comparison other. For example, one might reduce inputs (lower performance), or if possible,

increase outcomes. According to Adams (1965) when a person is over-rewarded he/she might

experience guilt, shame, or remorse instead of anger or resentment. These emotions are

negative and therefore should motivate individuals to move toward reducing the imbalance.

Because individuals do not usually forego positive outcomes, people are generally likely to

respond by increasing inputs. That is, they are expected to work harder.

For the purpose of this research paper an attempt would be to determine the effect pay

would have on employees. Pay in the workplace is considered a potentially motivating force

or learning device, and a highly rewarding outcome. It is considered important because it

refers to decisions made by the employee as to how high or good his/her contribution to the

organization will be. Pay is important to the extent it provides performance feedback

(Thierry, 1992). In the United States, a capitalistic society, money plays an important role in

the society. Equity theory deals with this issue as a source of motivation (Rice, 1993).

Employees realize that pay will lead to some security in living, recognition by peers, and

status in his or her professional group. In other words, pay is important to the extent that it is

seen as a way to realize more motives; even those employees who are dissatisfied with other

factors in their job (e.g., working conditions), will accept more pay to compensate for that

lack of satisfaction. According to Thierry (1992), pay will represent the following:

1. Salient motives: Pay is often seen as the vehicle that leads to the satisfaction, and is

expected to provide more security, more status, less anxiety, and more recognition.

2. Relative position: Pay may refer to the degree of progress in the employee‘s task

performance relative to task goals set, and thus informs us about the effectiveness of

performance behaviour. It also provides more opportunity to correct one‘s course of action.

Pay reflects how well someone‘s performance has been relative to others.

3. Control: Pay may convey to an employee how effective he or she has been in affecting the

behaviours of others.

Most of the research reviewed emphasized that underpayment inequity is associated with

negative attitude and dissatisfaction. Management needs to be concerned mainly with pay

equity since it is one of the most important outcomes for employees (Huseman, R. C. &

Hatfield, J. D, 1990) identified the top ten system outcomes and rated pay third after sense of

accomplishment and doing meaningful work.

Due to underpayment inequity, individuals may follow different approaches to restore equity,

one of which redefines their reference group (Watson, Storey, Wynarczyk, Keasey, & Short,

1996). Data was collected from 721 employees (553 employees and 168 managers) to

investigate the role of reference groups outside and inside the organization within the

framework of equity theory. Attitude towards pay was used as the base for comparison.

Therefore, the findings indicated that comparison to others outside and inside the

organization, contributes to pay satisfaction for employees (Ronen, 1986).

Goodman (1974) studied 214 managers in a single firm. The purpose of the study was to

show the relationship between comparison with referents and pay satisfaction. He used three

classes of referents (other, self, and system). ―Other‖ represents someone in the same

organization, but in a different designation. ―Self‖ refers to the input/outcome ratio from the

past job. ―System‖ refers to the contract between the employer and the employee. The

employees when comparing themselves to referent other, were the major determinant in their

pay satisfaction (Goodman, 1974).

Summers and DeNisi (1990) retested the Goodman study but tested the study on nationwide

level. The study involved 1043 managers from all levels of restaurant chain. Sixty-five

percent (65%) reported have feelings underpaid and the majority (34.5%) used self as a

comparison group. This study supports the hypothesis that comparison with referent (other,

self, system) is a major determinant of pay satisfaction. This supports Adams equity theory

that people tend to use a number of various referents simultaneously.

Equity theory has received more attention lately from human resource professionals,

especially regarding the fairness of outcome. Inequity is a major concern of industry, labour,

and government. It is not enough for the fairness of exchange between employees and

employer to be perceived by the employees as simply as an economic matter, an element of

relative justice is involved as well.

2.3 Expectancy theory

While Maslow and Herzberg look at the relationship between internal needs and the resulting

effort expended to fulfil them, Vroom's expectancy theory separates effort (which arises from

motivation), performance, and outcomes.

According to Igalens and Roussel (1999, p. 1006), the expectancy theory clearly indicates

that during the motivational process, the attitudinal factors drive the individual to produce

effort to perform better. Examples of attitudinal factors are the extrinsic or intrinsic rewards

felt by the employee, and the expectancy of whether the employee will succeed or fail in his

or her task. Therefore, in the process of motivating the employees, the manager might work

on the attitudinal factors which can drive the individual to perform better. Thus, in order for

the employee to produce effort to perform better, the manager can either discuss with the

employee on the reward he or she wants, and have two-way communication when the task is

being carried out. This will help the manager find out if the employee is facing any problem

and try to eliminate the problem to increase productivity of the employee.

The weakness of expectancy theories is that the relationship between effort and performance

is not be perfect, since it is moderated by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, ie, one‘s skills

and knowledge and by the difficulty of the task (Ferris, Beehr & Gilmore 1978, p. 342). The

difficulty of the job can only be determine by the employees himself or herself, because each

of the employees have different level of skills and knowledge and that the manager cannot

assume that the job which is easy for a particular employee, is also easy for the other

employees.

Another weakness of the expectancy theories is that the specification of an outcome from

some choice of job behaviour is more complex and open ended (Connolly 1976, p.39). A

manager might assume that giving several positive outcomes is enough to motivate their

employees. However, this may be wrong because one outcome may lead to another in an

extended sequence. For example, choosing to work hard may be associated to increase in

wages, however, this does not stop there because demand for the employees will increase

from time to time. Managers might find it hard to cope with employees demand as their

demands might change or remain the same; and the only way to know is through two way

communication or having feedback from time to time.

2.4 Job Characteristic Model

More than two decades of empirical research has inspired over 200 studies conducted on

attitudinal and behavioural outcomes, based on job characteristic model (Ambrose and Kulik

1999). Based on these researches, two main conclusions have been proposed by Parker et al.

(2001). First, the collective effects of the core job characteristics on affective responses

(satisfaction and motivation) have been largely supported, but those for behavior (i.e. work

performance, turnover and absence) less consistently. Second, the more particular features of

the model remain unproven. For example, the specified links between the job characteristics

and the critical psychological states have not been confirmed.

Hackman and Oldham had developed the job characteristics model as an alternative to job

design for conceptualizing traditional jobs, and took into account the utility of certain aspects

of work in achieving positive outcomes, such as motivation and satisfaction. Previous

findings on job characteristics, show that certain job characteristics can lead to desirable

outcomes, such as performance, high levels of motivation and satisfaction (Fried & Ferris,

1987). Another study confirmed the same, that if the mentioned job features are present in a

job, the job incumbent will be more likely to have high internal work motivation, high quality

and performance, high satisfaction with the work and thus, low absenteeism and turnover rate

(Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2005; Matteson, 2002). Research within the field of

entrepreneurship has been carried out as well, concluding that the promise of more desirable

job characteristics can motivate those currently employed by others to start their own

ventures (Cromie, 1987).

Table 1: Brief List of JCM Milestones Relevant to the Current Study

Author Year Contribution

Hackman & Oldham 1974 Job Diagnostic Survey (Assessment tool for JCM)

Hackman & Oldham 1975 Model for diagnosing job

Hackman & Oldham 1976 Motivating Potential Score – Score for motivating

potential of a job

James & Tetrick 1986 Established relationship for job characteristics and

satisfaction

Fried & Ferris 1987 Stronger relationship between job characteristics and

psychological outcomes than behavioral outcomes (meta-analysis)

Behson, Eddy, & Lorenzet 2000 Two stage model of JCM without critical psychological

states results in better fit than three stage model (SEM)

Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson 2007 Proposed expanded JCM

In this study, work characteristics are subdivided into three clear categories. The division is

developed from classification from the study by Janssen, Jonge & Bakker (1999) and Houkes

et al. (2001). The first category in this study is called internal job factors, which are directly

related to the job activity. This category focuses on the work content and draws heavily from

Hackman and Oldham‘s work characteristics model.

Autonomy: In individualist cultures, autonomy is among the most strongly held values (Hulin

and Judge 2003). However, we have to consider that autonomy is only important in those

jobs where the work is not routine or predictable (Latham and Pinder 2005). Three aspects of

work autonomy and responsibility are clarified in Morgeson and Campion (2003): timing

control, method control and production responsibility. Timing control reflects the opportunity

to determine the scheduling of work. Method control refers to the choice of how to carry out

tasks. Production responsibility concerns the extent to which an individual can make errors

that can result in loss of output. This research focuses on all the three aspects of autonomy.

The second category characterizes factors outside the job activity, thus focusing on the

conditions of employment. The relevant and selected variables of this factor are salary and

job security, that are assumed to influence the outcome variables (Houkes, Janssen, Jonge and

Nijhuis (2001), Morgeson and Campion (2003)).

The third category, called as social job factors, focuses on the social environment

at work. Social environment is considered as an important factor in work design. Research

conducted in the stress literature has emphasized the importance of social support. Social

support can come from co-workers or supervisors and might serve to buffer workers from a

number of negative outcomes. The social environment dimension has received less research

attention, but recent research on job and task interdependence has begun to address this gap.

More work is clearly needed into other features of the social environment, such as feedback

from others related to important work design outcomes (Morgeson and Campion 2001).

Within the category of social job factors, the selected variables are feedback from others and

co-worker relations.

Feedback from others: The work of Hackman and Lawler (1971) suggested that feedback

from others, i.e., co-workers, leaders etc., represents an important aspect of work. Also

Parker et al. (2001) highlighted feedback as an important job characteristic.

Co-worker relations: Co-worker relations is included as a factor within the social job factor

category due to results from the qualitative pilot study and due to demand from literature to

give social environment more attention in a work design setting (Morgeson and Campion

2003).

Today, JCM is identified as one of the key employee motivation theories for organizations

(Ramlall, 2004). The tenets of this approach are that the characteristics of a job lead to critical

psychological states, which lead to personal and work outcomes with each step being

moderated by one‘s need for growth. There are five core job characteristics, namely, skill

variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Skill variety is ostensible

variety and intricacy of skills and talents required by a job to perform it (Buys, Olckers, &

Schaap, 2007). Task identity requires from a worker to perform all the tasks

necessary to complete the job from beginning to the end of the production process; whereas

the worker‘s feeling for his job regarding its meaningful for his colleagues and organization

is termed as task significance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Autonomy refers to the situation

where the job provides its owner the freedom and power to exercise his own authority while

taking the decision

(Buys et al., 2007). When the employee gets direct and clear information about his

performance on his job, it is known as the feedback characteristic of job (Hunter, 2006).

All these job characteristics are specified as determinants of three ‗critical psychological

states‘: skill variety, task identity and task significance together contributing to ‗experienced

meaningfulness‘; autonomy to ‗experienced responsibility‘; and feedback to ‗knowledge of

results. In turn, the critical psychological states are cast collectively as promoting work

satisfaction, internal work motivation, performance and reduced absenteeism and employee-

turnover. The job characteristic model assumes that autonomy and feedback are more

important than the other work characteristics.

The personal and work outcomes are high internal work motivation, high quality work

performance, high satisfaction with work, and low absenteeism and turnover (Hackman &

Oldham, 1975, 1976). While these characteristics had been originally designed for the jobs of

those employed by others, they also apply to the self-employed. In particular, autonomy is

identified as a primary motivator by entrepreneurs for creating their own venture (Kuratko,

Hornsby, & Naffziger, 1997).

2.5 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Maslow proposed that if people grew up in an environment in which their needs are not meet,

they would be unlikely to function healthy, well-adjusted individuals. Research testing

Maslow‘s theory has supported the distinction between the hygiene and growth needs but

showed that not all people are able to satisfy their higher-order needs on the job. Maslow‘s

theory has not received a great deal of support with respect to specific notion it proposes

(Greenberg &Baron 2003, p195). To them this model is theorised to be especially effective in

describing the behaviour of individuals, who are high in growth need. Employees who are

different to the idea of increasing their growth will not realise any physiological reaction to

their jobs.

Centers & Bgental (1966) in their survey carried out among a cross-section of the working

population in Los Angeles, posited ―background factors, altitudes and aspirations affects

workers needs, expectations and situation assessment‖. According to Graham & Messner

(1998, p.196) there are generally three major criticisms directed to the need theory and other

content theories of motivation. (A) There is scant empirical data to support their conclusions,

(b) they assume employees are basically alike, and (c) they are not theories of motivation at

all, but rather theories of job satisfaction. This was supported by the views of Nadler &

Lawler (1979) in Graham & Messner (2000, p 188).

Nadler & Lawler (1979) cited in Graham & Messner (2000,p.198) were also critical of the

need theory of motivation. They argue that the theory makes the following unrealistic

assumptions about employees in general that: (a) all employees are alike (b) all situations are

alike and that (c) there is only one best way to meet needs. Another critic to this view was

Basset-Jones & Lloyd (2004, p 961).Basset-Jones & Lloyd (2004, p 961) presents that in

general, critics of the need theory argue that it is as a result of the natural feeling of

employees to take credit for needs met and dissatisfaction on needs not met.

2.6 Goal setting theory

Goal setting is a general theory that can be applied in a multitude of work situations. Support

for the theory comes from individual and group settings, laboratory and field studies, across

different cultures and involves many different tasks. Research indicates that specific goals

help bring about other desirable organizational goals, such as reducing absenteeism,

tardiness, and turnover (Locke & Latham, 2002)

Edwin Locke and Gary Latham (1990), leaders in goal-setting theory and research, have

incorporated nearly 400 studies about goals into a theory of goal setting and task

performance. The strongest support relates to the relationship between specific, difficult goals

and task performance. A meta-analysis performed by Tubbs (1986) supported the concept

that specific, difficult goals are positively correlated to improved performance. Other

research obtained similar conclusions and further stated that, ―If there is ever to be a viable

candidate from the organizational sciences for elevation to the lofty status of a scientific law

of nature, then the relationships between goal difficulty, specificity/difficulty, and task

performance are most worthy of serious consideration‖ (Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987, p.

74). DeWalt, et al. (2009) found a direct correlation between those who achieve set goals and

the motivation to create additional goals or add more challenging aspects to the current goal

based on feedback. Parker, Jimmieson, & Amiot (2009) found that autonomy in the

workplace improves self-efficacy, which improves performance towards reaching goals.

Within this idea is the vision and structure that goal setting provides, which helps to motivate

individuals and teams to perform better and do more (Sorrentino, 2006).

Goal setting is not without its critics. Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman (2009)

stated that the theory is over-prescribed and can potentially cause harm to an organization.

Care should be taken in applying goal setting due to the possible unintended side effects. The

arguments levied against the theory are not new and have been discussed by previous

researchers. For example, Ordóñez, et al. (2009) argued that unethical behaviour can result

from motivating employees to meet specific and challenging goals. In an effort to reach a

sales quota, salespeople may either fudge numbers or lie to customers in order to reach their

monetary goal. According to the authors, this focus on goal attainment can actually promote

unethical behaviour by creating a ―focus on ends rather than the means‖ (Ordóñez, et

al., 2009, p. 12). Not only was negative behaviour addressed by Latham & Locke, but the

means to mitigate this issue were offered as well, such as offering progressive awards toward

goal attainment, organizational control systems, and an ethical workplace culture (O'Neil &

Drillings, 1994).

The preponderance of empirical research supporting goal-setting theory illustrates its utility

as a method to motivate individuals and improve organizational outcomes. While some

caution may be in order, Locke and Latham (2002) argue that failures resulting from the

theory are usually due to errors in its application and can often be prevented. The subject of

human motivation is vast and complex. No single theory fully explains every aspect of what

motivates individuals to perform better.

2007 Study by Vigoda-Gadot and Angert35

A study conducted in 2007 by researchers EranVigoda-Gadot and Larisa Angert at the

University of Haifa found connections between the aspects of goal-setting theory, specifically

in the realm of feedback, and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). This study used

the Management by Objectives (MBO) process to study aspects of goal-setting theory beyond

the goals themselves, by examining desirable types of behaviours in organizations such as the

enhancement of team spirit and job attachment, social support, and bolstering performance

overall beyond the goals set by management (Vigoda-Gadot&Angert, 2007, p.

20).Participants in this study were students working in a social service capacity with needy

children in Israel.

The study set the independent variables of goal setting, job satisfaction, job commitment,

organizational justice, and job feedback against the dependent variables of formal

performance and OCB (Vigoda-Gadot&Angert, 2007, p. 123). Since the researchers were

already in agreement about Locke and Latham's argument that the setting of specific goals

was better than vague ones, their focus was on how behaviours not related to goals would be

increased by the processes of goal setting. The findings concluded that though the process is

important, the key remained in feedback regarding both the formal goals set during the

process as well as feedback regarding other informal behaviours. Specifically, that "managers

should consider the positive effect of feedback on formal performance, but even more

importantly, on informal work behaviours such as altruistic OCB or compliance OCB"

(Vigoda-Gadot & Angert, 2007, p. 127). This is important since it is not only results that

drive an organization, but the people who fit within it and how they conduct themselves with

others both in their own group and throughout the company, both in representation and group

harmony.

3. Methodology

The data were collected from employees of diverse organizational background to gain wide

representation of organizational culture. In all, 110 self-administered questionnaires were

distributed among the employees working in the IT sector. In addition to this, 20 personal

interviews were conducted to obtain detailed insights from the employees. The participation

in survey was voluntary and confidentiality of responses was ensured.

3.1 Data Collection

A survey research design was used in the current study to examine the effect of training &

development, appraisal and compensation on work motivation. The survey research design

was a suitable choice for two reasons: (a) A cross-sectional study the data was collected at

one point in time, and (b) The study aimed at measuring the importance of the various factors

that are important for motivating employees. The respondents were asked about their

preferences and reactions to various situations that employees face on a daily basis, and their

response was used to deduce the most important factors for motivation.

The current research followed the procedure, which integrated the construction of precise

measuring instrument in shape of a questionnaire, which comprised of 30 questions in the

beginning. In an exploratory phase the questionnaire was pre- tested and the items that

challenged the reliability and validity of the scale were eliminated. The final questionnaire

administered contained 23 questions. The questionnaire was administered to people working

in the IT sector with work experience between 1 to 5 years. The questionnaire was mailed to

most of them, and interviews were conducted for 20 employees.

3.2 Data Processing

Tools used : SPSS,MS-EXCEL, Google-Docs

The questionnaire was floated using google-docs software, which facilitated avoiding

incompleteness and inconsistencies. This helped detect errors and omissions, by correcting

them when possible, and certifying that minimum data quality standards are achieved. It also

helps eliminate initial screening, which is generally carried out to determine if the responses

are legible, consistent and complete. Before the data are tabulated and analysis carried, the

researcher is required to edit the same suitably to make it more meaningful.

The data was entered using SPSS and simple frequencies were run on the summated scores

for both the variables, which showed the minimum, and the maximum summated score for

both the variables and also the frequencies for all the summated scores of the whole data.

Cronbach‘s Alpha Cronbach (1951) was used to check the reliability of the scale and internal

consistency. The value .74 of the Cronbach alpha is a good indicator of the instrument‘s

internal-consistency reliability. In addition to this, a personal interview of 20 employees were

conducted which helped in providing deeper insights about employee motivation.

3.3 Handling of Blank Responses

The respondents leave some questions unanswered or blank. De Vaus (2002) has suggested

that the blank responses should be assigned the middle value. According to Converse and

Stanley Presser (1986), it is the editor‘s responsibility to decide which of the responses is

both consistent with intent the of the question and other information in the survey and most

accurate for this individual respondent. In this study in order to avoid any bias or

misunderstanding, the all the questions were made mandatory to answer, ie, the questionnaire

would not be submitted unless the respondent answers all the questions.

4. Data Analysis

4.1 McClelland’s Theory

Based on the response, we found that a vast majority of the people prefer maintaining

friendly rather than professional relations at the workplace. This depicts the need to maintain

good relations with people around one-self, and points out to a strong need for affiliation at

the workplace. However, as far as completion of the work is concerned, most of the people

do not have absolute work preferences. When asked about their work reference, most of them

responded stating that they did not mind working on individual tasks or group assignments as

well.

Another observation made is that a majority of the people prefer to discuss a matter upfront in

case of disagreement. This depicts the need for power among the respondents. However, it

has been observed that the need is stronger when things take place against their will. For

example, a majority of the same sample of respondents do not mind someone else leading the

group most of the times.

Most of the respondents inquire about the progression of the work on a regular basis, and take

necessary inputs from their superiors to do the work in a better manner. Also, the respondents

tend to challenge themselves, to take up work beyond their work description. This depicts a

strong need for achievement among the respondents.

4.2 Expectancy Theory

The motivational force of the sample was found out by assigning values to all the three

components, ie, expectancy, instrumentality and valence. The product of the scores of all the

three components was found out to determine the strength of expectancy theory of motivation

in each case. Because the motivational force is the product of the three perceptions, if any one

of their values is zero, the whole equation becomes zero.

Based on the results, we derived that expectancy and instrumentality are more important

motivators, as compared to valence. The score of valence was significantly less, as compared

to expectancy and instrumentality.

4.3 Equity Theory

The need for equity is tested through the questionnaire. The views of the respondents

regarding internal and external equity have not been captured separately. However, the key

issue is capturing the importance of equity in the views of the concerned person. Most of the

responses did acknowledge the importance of equity.

4.4 Goal Setting Theory

A majority of employees clarify their doubts as opposed to using their own judgement if the

given task is ambiguous. This shows that employees believe that their goals should be

specific. When it comes to deadlines, a major proportion of the employees, especially the

ones who perform managerial tasks, feel that goals should have deadlines. The responses also

showed that there are very few employees who want the organisation to set goals for them.

Most employees believe that goal setting process should be participative of both, the

employee and his manager.

4.5 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The responses show that a vast number of employees believe that compensation, working

conditions and good interpersonal relations are basic requirements. This demonstrates that the

lower order needs forms the hygiene factor which is minimum employee requirement. At the

same time, most employees rated self-respect and growth factors as highest. This shows that

the need for self-esteem and self-actualization is higher in our target group.

4.6 Job Characteristic Model

As opposed to gaining expertise in same role, majority of employees preferred working on

different roles to learn new things. This shows that skill variety is important to the

employees. There were very few employees who restricted themselves to working on the

same component for a long period of time. Employees also feel that task identity is an

important factor. Almost all the employees feel that their jobs should be significant and add

value to the company and to the society as well. Another important factor that employees

think affects their motivation is the freedom to work. Responses show that employees tend to

perform better when they have autonomy of their tasks. However, employees also feel that a

certain degree of autonomy should be maintained to avoid absolute ownership. Similarly,

employees feel that feedback mechanism is a crucial factor for enhanced performance. A

majority of employees were open not only to positive feedback but also negative feedback.

5. Proposed model for motivation

Based on our study of both traditional and modern motivational theories, and our research

through questionnaire data, we would like to propose a new model for motivation. Below are

the four factors that are most important to employees having a work experience between one

to five years in Information Technology industry.

5.1 Good Work Environment

Nothing stunts productivity like a sour working environment. Indeed, employee happiness is

directly linked to motivation, according to a study published by the Health. Creating a

positive work environment can potentially have a big impact on employee motivation. One of

the most important factors mentioned by the majority of respondents was having an open,

safe, and welcoming environment. A friendly, supportive, and caring environment drives

employee motivation.

Organizations should try to establish a trusting relationship with employees and provide

them, with the means they need to perform. A supportive and encouraging environment can

be created by providing people the opportunity to expand their minds and abilities, to assume

responsibility for their own actions, and to find innovative ways to do their work and meet

their goals. Organization should create an environment that is interactive and engaging,

paying attention to building relationships and inclusion. Providing regular feedback and

taking time to know the needs and expectations of the employees, increases trust and

openness in relationships.

Employees spend a large chunk of their lives working in their office, Hence it is important for

the employer to make the work environment as appealing as possible. A pleasant and

comfortable working environment attracts the employees to work which directly affects their

productivity.

5.2 Autonomy or Empowering employees

Autonomy is particularly critical when it comes to creating and maintaining intrinsic

motivation. It gives them a freedom of choice, which in turn provides a sense of self-

determination. This means giving them more room to make decisions, to think for

themselves, to "own" their jobs.

Command and control environments create an atmosphere that fosters Learned Helplessness.

Employees in this environment feel that thinking for themselves and acting on their own is

pointless, so they passively await orders.

In contrast, when employees get the chance to think and act like small business owners-i.e.

have autonomy, they continuously build confidence and greater self-efficacy. Because of this,

these employees possess far greater resilience which makes them better resources.

Autonomous motivation has proven to promote greater conceptual understanding, generate

higher productivity, less burnout, and greater levels of psychological well-being. Workplaces

can support autonomy by giving people real control over various aspects of their work —

whether it‘s deciding what to work on or when to do it.

5.3 Rewards and Recognition

Rewards are crucial for maintaining employee motivation, however, it is important not to let

the rewards become the main goal. Rewards are feedback that goals are being accomplished.

When organization recognizes exceptional effort or rare achievement, its value for the

employee increases. Simple things such as a company-wide email acknowledgment or pat on

the back will go a long way. Additionally, personal call or shake hands to express

appreciation to the employee, will instil motivation of a surprising level.

When management genuinely recognizes an employee‘s contribution to the organization,

they feel, they are vital members of a team working towards a goal. They feel like the

company is more than just a place to work. Recognition is priceless, and status is much more

than money. It increases employee loyalty, enhances performance and generates greater

success.

Recognition can be an incredibly powerful tool to foster a close-knit team environment,

encourage employees to achieve high levels of productivity, increase employee retention

rates, and reduce incidental expenses relating to inattentiveness to job duties that result in

dissatisfied customers, safety issues, or on-the-job downtime.

5.4 Purpose

A dramatic shift is occurring in how employees view their work. In many cases employees

are willing to work harder and work for an employer longer if the intrinsic feeling of purpose

motivates them. People don‘t just want to make money, they also want to be meaningful

contributors to their community and take action to respect and preserve the planet.

People who find purpose in their work unlock the highest level of the motivation game. It

connects to a cause larger than self that drives the deepest motivation. Such deep motivation

drives employees to pursue the most difficult problems. They can go the extra mile if they

care about the outcome and stay engaged. Employees can also be inspired to meet stretch

goals and tackle impossible challenges.

Organizations should make sure employees know and understand the organisation‘s purpose

goals not just its profit goals. Employees, who understand the purpose and vision of their

organisation and how their individual roles contribute to this purpose, are more likely to be

satisfied in their work.

6. Conclusion

The aim of the study was to explore the applicability and impact of motivational theories on

employees, their performance and job satisfaction. Motivational theories attempt to explain

what motivates people to behave the way they do. Motivational theories can be applied to

workplace settings to shed light into why some employees work harder or are more

committed than others. However, in any organization, one size does not fit all. Hence, no

individual theory is sufficient to motivate employees by itself. Organizations need to find out

every employees needs and then use a relevant motivator. Many a times, a need may arise to

use various techniques together in order to motivate employees.

7. Limitations and directions for future research

The current study is limited to employees having a work experience between 1-5 years in the

Information Technology sector. The scope of the study will increase if the target group

consists of middle and senior management. The research can further be extended to various

sectors like Manufacturing, FMCG, etc.

REFERENCES

Greenberg, J. (1999). Managing behavior in organizations.2nd edition. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment of inequity: The hidden

cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.

McClelland D.C., (1985). How motives, skills & values determine what people do

[Electronic version]. American Psychologist,40(7), 812-825.

Thrash, T.M., & Elliot, A.J., (2001).Delimiting & Integrating achievement motive and goal

constructs, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Available from

http://www.site.ebrary.com/lib/acap/doc?id=10053382

Wood, J, Zeffane, R., Fromholtz M., Wiesner R., Creed A., SchermerhornJ.,Hunt J., &

Osborn R., (2010). Organisational Behaviour, Core concepts &applications.

2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Australia, Ltd. Milton Qld.

Geiger, M.A., & Cooper, E.A. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons using Expectancy Theory

to assess student motivation [Electronic version]. Issues in Accounting Education, 11(1), 113-

126.

Cropanzano, R. (Ed.)(1993). Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human

resource management. Hillsdale: Academic Press, Inc.

Cropanzano, S. R., &Kacmar, M. K. (Ed.)(1995). Organizational politics, justice, and

support: Managing the social climate of the work place. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Publishing Group, Inc.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), advances in

experimental psychology pp. 267-299. New York: Academic Press.

Thierry, H. (1992). Payment: Which meanings are rewarding? American Behavioral

Scientists, 35(6), 694-707.

Rice, R. D. (1993). Equity theory: The pay satisfaction Construct. Thesis. Tuscaloosa,

Alabama.

Huseman, R. C. & Hatfield, J. D. (1990).Equity theory and the managerial matrix.

Training and Development Journal, 44(4), 98-103.

Watson, R., Storey, D., Wynarczy, P., Keasey, K., & Short, H. (1996). The relationship

between job satisfaction and managerial remuneration in small and medium sized enterprises:

An empirical test of comparison income and equity theory hypothesis. Applied Economics,

28(5),567-577.

Ronen, S. (1986). Equity perception in multiple comparisons: A field study. Human

Relations, 39(4), 333-346.

Goodman, P. S. (1974). An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 170-195.

Summers, T. P. &DeNisi, A. S. (1990). In search of Adams other: Reexamination of

referents used in the evaluation of pay. Human Relations, 43(6), 497-511.

Greiner, JM 1986, ‗Motivational programs and productivity improvement in times of limited

resources‘, Public Productivity Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 81-101, from Jstor database.

Lyden, RJ 1976, ‗Power driven managers make the best bosses‘, Public Administration

Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 201-202, from Jstor database.

Wagner, KV & Swanson, C 1979, ‗From Machiavelli to Ms: differences in male-female

power styles‘, Public Administration Review, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 66-72, from Jstor database.

Jurkiewicz, CL, Massey, TM & Brown, RG 1998, ‗Motivation in public and private

organizations: A comparative study‘, Public Productivity & Management Review, vol. 21,

no. 3, pp. 230-250, from Jstor database.

Igalens, J &Roussel, P 1999, ‗A study of the relationship between compensation package,

work motivation and job satisfaction‘, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 20, no. 7, pp.

1003-1025, from Jstor database.

Ferris, GR, Beehr, TA & Gilmore, DC 1978, ‗Social facilitation: A review and alternative

conceptual model‘, Academy of Management Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 338-347, from

ABI/INFORM Global database.

Connolly, T 1976, ‗Some conceptual and methodological issues in expectancy models of

work performance motivation‘, Academy of Management Review, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 37-47,

from ABI/INFORM Global database.

DeVaus, D.A. (2002). Survey in Social Research 5th edition, London, Routledge.

Converse, J.M., & Presser, S. (1986) Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized

Questionnaire. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

67, 422-436.

Cowherd, D.M., & Levine, D.I. (1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower-level

employees and top

management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 37, 302-320.

Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., &Naffziger, D. W. (1997). An examination of owner's goals in

sustaining

entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 24-33.

Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for

employee

retention within organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5, 52-63.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.

Cromie, S. (1987).Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs.Journal of

Occupational

Behavior, 8, 251-261.

Ambrose, M. L and Kulik, C. T. (1999).‘Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the

1990s.‘Journal of Management.Vol 25 (3), pp 231 – 292.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. &Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of

psychological empowerment on the job interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407 – 416.

Parker, S. K, Wall, T. D. &Corderly, J. L. (2001). ‗Future work design research and practice:

Towards an elaborated model of work design.‘Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology 74, 413 – 440.

Gomez-Mejia, R.L., Balkin, B.D., &Cardy L.R. (2005).Management (2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Buys, M.A., Olckers, C., &Schaap, P. (2007).Theconstruct validity of the revised job

diagnosticsurvey.South African Journal of BusinessManagement, 38, 33-40.

Latham, G.P. &Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the

twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485 – 516.

Hulin, C. L. & Judge, T. A. (2003). In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),

Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: 255-276.

Janssen, P. P. M., Jonge, J. & Bakker, A.B. (1999). ‘Specific determinants of intrinsic work

motivation, burnout and turnover intentions: a study among nurses. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 29 (6), 1360-1369.

Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P. M., Jonge, J. &Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2001). Specific relationships

between work characteristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover intention:

A multi-sample analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 1-

23.

Morgeson, F. R. & Campion, M. A. (2003). In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen& R. J. Klimoski

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: 425 – 452.

[1] Antomioni, D. (1999), ―What motivates middle managers‖? IndustrialManagement, Nov,-

Dec, Vol. 41, No 6, pp. 27-30.

[2] Basset-Jones, N. & Lloyd, G.C. (2005), ―Does Herzbergs Motivational Theoryhave

staying power‖? Journal of Management Development, Vol.24, No.10,pp. 57-56

[3] Friedlander, F. (1964), ―Job characteristics as satisfies and dissatisfies‖,Journal of applied

Psychology, Vol.48, No.6, pp. 388-399.

[4] Friedlander, F. (1966) ―Motivation to work and Organisational Performance‖,Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 143-152.

[5] Friedlander, F. (1966b) ―importances of work versus Non work among

socialoccupationally stratified groups.‖ Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 50, No.6, pp.

437-443.

[6] Gordon, G. (1965), ―The relationship of Satisfies and Dissatisfies toProductivity,

Turnover and Morale‖, American Psychologist, Vol. 20, pp.499

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Upper Saddle River,

NJ:Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H.Freeman.

Latham, G. P. (2003). Goal setting: A five-step approach to behavior change.Organizational

Dynamics, 32(3), 309-318.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990).A theory of goal setting and task performance.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting

and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Luthans, F. (2011). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Ordonez, L., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A., &Bazerman,M. (2009). Goals gone wild: How

goals systematically harm individuals and organizations. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 23(1), X–X.

Pinder, C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. &Angert, L. (2007). Goal setting theory, job feedback, and OCB: Lessons

from a longitudinal study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,29(2), 119-128. Retrieved

February 20, 2014

O'Neil Jr., H.F., & Drillings, M. (Eds.). (1994). Motivation: Theory and research. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal

setting on task performance: 1966-1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

processes

DeWalt, D.A., Davis, T.C., Wallace, A.S., Seligman, H.K., Bryant-Shilliday, B., Arnold,

C.L., Freburger, J., &Schillinger, D. (2009). Goal setting in diabetes self-management:

Taking the baby steps to success. Patient Education and Counseling, 77, 218-223

Morgeson, F. R. & Campion, M. A. (2003). In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: 425 – 452.

Hackman, J. R. and Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55, 259 – 286.