-Centered on finding organizational factors effecting on work motivation and on their mechanisms-
For many goal-oriented organizations, productivity is important: performance must be both effective and efficient. Productivity is a function of technology and individual performance. Individual performance, in turn, is affected by ability and motivation to produce. Because of the tremendous reservoir of latent human capabilities, motivation is critical for productivity, particularly in strategic and coordinative subsystems in organizations.
Management can do its job only through motivating people to work for management's objectives. But it is impossible to understand motivation without considering what people want and expect from their jobs.
As L.C. Megginson suggested, it is management's responsibility to understand the factors that motivate employees and to create a motivational environment where those factors can be organized into a stimulating force that will integrate individual goals with organizational goals.
After all, we know that, of all the problems faced by management, motivation must surely be ranked as one of the most intractable. Matching the appropriate rewards with the predominate needs of the individual is the task of every manager. Physiological needs are satisfied largely off-the-job by the money earned by working. The job itself may provide opportunities for the satisfaction of many social needs. High level needs such as esteem and selfactualization can be satisfied through-the-job.
Many writers have suggested concentration on higher-level need satisfaction in order for man to realize his full potential. McGregor stresses Theory Y (as contrasted to Theory X). Likert has evolved system Four with the same goal in mind. Herzberg stresses motivating factors such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, and the task itself, rather than the hygiene functions such as working conditions, salary, and administrative climate. McClelland describes the achievement motive as related to esteem and self-actualization needs and stresses its importance for many individuals in society, particularly entrepreneurmanagers. Of particular concern in the discussion of individual behavior and motivation is the opportunity for self-actualization at work.
We can group the theories of work motivation into two (content theories and Process theories).
The content theories of motivation attempt to determine what it is that motivates people at work. At first it was felt to be money only (scientific management) and then a little later it was felt to be also working conditions, security and perhaps a democratic style of supervision (human relations). More recently, the content of motivation has been deemed to be the so-called "high-level" needs or motives, such as esteem and-self-actualization (Maslow), and responsibility, recognition, achievement and growth (Herzberg). A thorough understanding of the two major content models contributes to be understanding of work motivation. The process theories, on the other hand, are more concerned with identifying the variables that go into motivation and, more importantly, how they relate to one another. The expectancy models make the most significant contribution to understanding the cognitive process involved in work motivation.
One of the most influential contemporary theories of motivation is Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy theory, frequently referred to as expectancy theory, VIE theory depicts motivation as resulting from the extent to which a person perceives that he can and wants to perform well and the extent to which he perceives that such performance will produce desired outcome. Despite differing models and measures, the body of empirical research using VIE theory shows it to have a modest but fairly consistent capability for predicting work motivation and performance.
In brief, one can distinguish between "content" theories of work motivation which are concerned with what in the individual or environment energizes and sustains behavior and "mechanical (Process)" theories of work motivation which attempt to explain motivated behavior. According to this view need theory is a content theory and expectancy theory is a mechanical theory. I believe these theories are and should be complementary rather than contradictory.
The major objective of the research detailed here is to explore the relationship between the organizational factors and employee work motivation, for example, between leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance in business organizations.
A growing number of research studies have yielded evidence of the strong relationship between performance contingent
rewards and subordinate behavior. Empirical research in expectancy theory has shown the effects of expectancies (effort-toperformance, performance-to-reward) on job behavior. Other research has demonstrated that performance-reward contingencies are significantly related to job performance and satisfaction.
The major portion of reward-contingency research has been directed at the impact of monitary rewards on motivation and performance. However, the fact that business employees in Korea nowdays are satisfied with low level needs and do not need such monitary rewards any more is found.
This empirical study in chapter 3 found that organizational motivation behavior was factorable into four components: managerial leadership, the nature of job, personnel reward systems, and organizational climate. The relationships between components of organizational behavior and employee work motivation were studied at two different professional groups.
The results, presented in table, support the hypothesis in general and indicate:
(1) a strong positive relationship between the nature of work (job) and employee work motivation.
(2) a extremely strong relationship between the nature of work and achievement motives.
(3) a positive relationship between managerial leadership and employee work motivation and between personnel rewards and employee work motivation.
Some organizational climates encourage goal-oriented behaviors while others do not. In the past, most managements were able to (Table) Correlations between organizational factors and their effects on employee motivation at two groups.
* P = .10 ** P = .05
create adequately motivating climates by using well-established, standardized approaches to compensation, job design, promotion, and selection. But times have changed, and a number of societal trends suggest that changes are necessary in the motivational approachies taken by most organizations. Behavioral research has pointed out that there are problems with pay and promotion as motivators.
The following seven trends shaping Korean industry today have particularly strong implications for how organizations need to change if they are to deal effectively with motivational issues.
(1) Educational level (2) Diversity of workforce (3) Technological changes (4) Union contracts (5) Government regulations (6) Organizational growth, and (7) Attractiveness of nonwork.
At last, the task of creating a motivating work environment simply requires a different approach than previously. Behavioral research has pointed out that there are problems with pay and promotion as motivators. Though some following problems promising new approaches, at least, do exist, they don't solve all problems: None the less, they oppear capable of helping organizations deal with the rapid economic societal changes now taking place:
(1) Realistic job previews (Individualized job design) (motivating people with meaningful work)
(2) Organizational subunit design.
(3) Management by objectives.
(4) Individualized reward system.
(5) Conception change for employees.
It may be useful to interprete these results within an operatconditioning framework