Impact Of Motivational Factors On Employee's Commitment

₦5,000.00

CHAPTER TWO

IMPACT OF MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS ON EMPLOYEE'S COMMITMENT

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literature that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.

Precisely, the chapter will be considered in three sub-headings:

Conceptual Framework
Theoretical Framework
Empirical Review

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Concept of Motivation

The concept of motivation has been defined in different ways by different scholars. Motivation is derived from a Latin word known as ‘Movere’. Movere means to move. Motivation is based on the principle of hedonism. Hedonism is that human tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Berelson & Staines (2003) defined the concept of motivation as an inner state that encourages, activities or mores, direct and channels behaviour towards goals.

It is also referred to as a general term applying to the entire class of drives, needs, wishes and similar forces that propel an employee to action. For example, an employee of an organization may decide to work with all enthusiasm indicating she wants to make a major contribution to the realization of the organization’s objective. The employer may decide to reward the employee with mere words of mouths of monetary rewards. The employer’s reward can further motivate employee to productivity. Beach (2005) defined motivation as the willingness to expend energy in order to achieve a goal .Agbeto (2002) cited in Davies(2005) says hat motivation is keenness for a particular pattern or behavior. He explained how drive, urges and needs of individuals direct and control their behaviour. Davies (2005) defines the concept as what goes on inside a person, which brings about her behavior. Davies emphasizes that lack of motivation could make an individual not to achieve satisfaction from the work. Agbeto (2002) define the term as that thing which moves somebody towards a goal. Motivation is a term applying to the class drives, desire, needs, wishes and similar forces. (Koontz O’Donnell, 2008).

Implicit in all the definitions of motivation above, is the fact that motivation deals with the factors that induce people to performance in the organization.

Features of motivation

McCoy (2007) cited in Martins(2010) in her conference paper presentation outlined the following features of motivation. A word of caution it may differ from others as it is dependent on how a particular researcher sees it. She charged that;

It is an act of management 
It is a continuous process 
It can be positive or negative 
it is goal oriented and complex in nature 
it is an art and not science 
it is a system or organizational oriented 
it is different from job satisfaction

Sources of Motivation

Hitt (2000) cited in Koontz(2008), contributing to motivation was of the opinion that, there are basically three categories of variables that determine motivation at the work setting thus;

(a) Characteristics of the individual - the first category, are the source of internal or push forces of motivation. This he claims is what the employee brings to the work setting(Levi, 2008). Defending his point further asserts that three variables also contribute to an individual‟s push forces: the persons (1) Need- such as security, self esteem, achievement, or power. (2) Attitudes- towards job, a supervisor, or organisation and (3) Goals- such as task completion, accomplishment of a certain level of performance, and carrier advancement.

(b) Characteristics of the job- the second category according to him, relates to the external or pull forces which concentrate in job characteristics of the person (what the person does at the workplace). The characteristics he outlined as how much direct feedback he receives, the work load, the variety and scope of tasks and degree of control the person has in terms of how he or she works(Grant, 2007).

(c) Characteristics of the work situation – the third category he identified, and from his submission it clearly shows that it relates to the work situation of the person, talking about what actually happens to the person. A further reading by the researcher, revealed that this category has two sets of variables: the immediate social environment comprising the person‟s supervisors, working group members and subordinates; and the various types of organisational actions such as the firms rewards and compensation practices, the availability of training and development, and the amount of pressure applied to achieve high levels of output.

Types of Motivation

Lin (2009) proposed that motivation can either be intrinsic or extrinsic. In the workplace as well as other settings, motivation is often classified as being naturally extrinsic or intrinsic (Martocchio, 2004). Lin, 2007; Ryan & Deci (2007) also identified several classes of motivation namely; extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation: can be referred to as motivation derived from within the individual or from the activity itself, it can be said to have an affirmative outcome on the conduct, performance and well-being of an individual (Ryan & Deci, 2007). In the workplace, it springs from impulses that are characteristic of the work itself. It is what workers derive because of their success in completing a task. Such Intrinsically motivated rewards comprises the chance to showcase expertise and abilities, receive gratitude, good recognition, freedom, responsibility and mutual respect. A worker that is inherently inspired, according to Van Rooyen, (2006) would be devoted to his job for as long as he believes the job is able to satisfy his wants. Intrinsically driven work conduct are behaviors performed for one’s own sake, that is, the inspiration to work emanates from within the individual. Here the worker is motivated because he derives happiness in doing the job. For instance, a domestic worker in an organization whose pay is quite low compared to other workers cleans the surroundings every time and even put in extra hours to clean not because of an increase in pay but because of the happiness derived in doing it. Such a motivation originates from rewards that are considered inherent to a job or activity itself such as the pleasure an individual derives from a game of chess or the love of playing soccer. Therefore, when an individual engages in activities without any apparent inducements with the exception of the activity itself such an individual is said to be motivated intrinsically. On the other hand, extrinsic motivated behaviors are those that are external to the activity or the work, such as compensation, conditions of work, welfares, safety, and elevation etc. these motivators are usually determined by the company the individual works for. Extrinsic behaviors require workers to work hard or put in extra hours so as to get the reward that comes with it. Workers may not like the task but are inspired by the additional benefits, awards etc. It is a behavior that is put up to obtain substantial or social rewards and to evade chastisement. For instance, a receiver in a guesthouse is aware that working hard and diligently would bring about additional benefits and even promotion may not be happy putting in extra hours but the incentive forces him/her to work harder. Van Rooyen, (2006) an extrinsically inspired individual will be dedicated for as long as external rewards are available. For example, good pay has been perceived over time to be an effective strategy businesses utilize to motivate their workforce to perform thereby improving organizational performance. Also, most employers of labor have understood the point that for businesses to contend well in a business setting, the performance of their workforce is very essential and crucial in influencing the result in terms of the success of the business. Hence, it can be presumed that the performance of a workforce is not only key to the progress, solidity and enlargement of the business alone but also for personal advancement of the workforce as a whole. Motivation that is considered extrinsic stems from outside of the performer. Money can be said to be the greatest example, nevertheless coercion and the fear of punishment are also common extrinsic motivations. In various organizations, Competition is seen as extrinsic since it encourages the performers to win and outwit their rivals, rather than appreciate the intrinsic rewards associated with the activity. However it is also imperative to note that extrinsic rewards may result in over justification and a later a decrease in intrinsic motivation. The universal difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is that whereas intrinsic motivation is triggered by internal forces or those within oneself, extrinsic motivation is determined by external forces (Giancola, 2003).

Intrinsic Motivational

Factors Although there are various forms of intrinsic motivation, this study focuses on an employee’s wellbeing, employee’s relationship with co-workers as well as their managers as factors that may influence an employee’s productivity levels in an organization. Intrinsic motivation, derived from within an individual or from the nature of the work itself, positively influences behavior, wellbeing and productivity (Ryan & Deci, 2007). These factors are discussed below;

Employee Well-being

The concept of employee’s well-being in most organizations has become a thing of great interest in recent years. In today’s world, the increasing reliance on overall market forces places a considerable load on salary earners and those of working age as regards delivery of goods and services. Consequently this has adversely affected the health, safety and general wellbeing of the workforce. Therefore the well-being of a workforce cannot be underestimated as workers also have similar needs be it physical or emotional. These needs may vary ranging from welfare, security, health and a sense that they are capable of coping with life. Employees now look to their organizations for assistance in achieving this because a significant amount of their time and lives are expended at work. Most business establishments around the globe understand the necessity for a healthy workforce as they are crucial in enhancing an organization’s productivity levels and fiscal performance. As such, most organizations take giant strides in a bid to improve the welfare of their workforces by implementing several health and productivity programs that is aimed at promoting the well-being of their workforce. Well-being is defined as a concept that encompasses physical, financial and psychological health, as well as a personal connection and a sense of belonging and not just the absence of an ailment or injury. It is an extensive ideology that takes cognizance of the individual as a whole as regards the physical and mental states of a person (Lin, 2009). Finally, for health and well-being programs to be successful an organization must be able to relate effectively with their workforce and ensure that matters of great concern that may be termed personal to staff and their relations are catered for. Some of these matters may include their welfare packages, health-related behaviors, present and eventual monetary state of affairs as well as their experiences in the place of work. It is imperative to note that the attitude of a workforce provides several clues on how to obtain the best returns on health and productivity investments. Latham (2009) stated that there are proofs showing that the health and wellbeing of an organization’s labor force is inseparably associated with their levels of productivity as well as the health of the nation’s economy. As such employers of labour are also very much aware of the importance of wellbeing programs and are concerned with seeking out better ways to improve employee wellbeing through various health protection and promotion benefit programs.

Most organizations even allow staff to take several days off due to illness without being deprived of their pay. Some even compensate members of their work force for not taking sick leave by giving them additional pay (Fried, 2007). Appelbaum(2009), also agreed that managers give their workers paid time off, free lunch and relaxation times, vacations, leave etc. This is done with a view to ensure that workers stay healthy and motivated thereby increasing their levels of effectiveness and efficiency in the workplace resulting in high productivity.

Relationship with Co-workers

An employee’s relationship with co-workers describes the associations that exist between workers of equal levels on the hierarchy in an organization without any form of authority over one another. Workers who enjoy great support from their co-workers are highly industrious and find their workplace friendly. Cummins (2010) stated that employees who have a decent affiliation with their fellow workers are usually prosperous and very productive in the workplace even when their jobs are very stressful. This means that a co-worker’s support is very essential in minimizing stress. Mayo, Sanchez, Pastor and Rodriguez (2012) as well agreed that co-worker support is vital in aiding productivity in the workplace. Although, the relationship that exists among co-workers as well as managers in relation to support has seldom been considered, the kind of relationships a worker has in terms of support from his co-workers has a very strong influence on his performance and productivity levels (Schaubroeck, Cotton & Jennings, 2005). A rational explanation of relations that exist amongst workers be it friendly or strictly professional has an impression on the level of effectiveness and efficiency of a worker which are elements of productivity. For instance workers who enjoy support from fellow workers also have personal relationships outside of work and bond more with their co-workers tend to appreciate the workplace and hence perform exceedingly well and are highly productive in their work as opposed to those with lesser support. Employees have a sense of belonging when they can comfortably request assistance from colleagues in the completion of certain jobs, which promotes unity (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Good relationships with co-workers is very effective in minimizing job stress and promoting harmony amongst the staff of an organization. This can be achieved through organized social functions aimed at promoting the bond between members of the workforce. Existence of effective relationships between employees and colleagues also ensures job satisfaction (Altinoz, 2012).

Such relationships with co-workers create room for flexibility in work scheduling, division of workload among others. Co-worker interactions play a huge part in determining the conduct of workers as regards productivity levels on the job. When workers are pleased, it is generally due to the fact that they are contented with their jobs. This is also reflected in the quality of their work. Workers who derive pleasure in working with fellow workers are motivated beyond personal factors and are often engaged with their jobs (Robbins 2004). Consequently workers who relate well and enjoy working with their colleagues particularly when engaged in team work are highly productive. Such workers tend to be more devoted and motivated as opposed to their equals who lack such relationships with their co-workers. That is to say they operate more effectively and efficiently with the success of the organization in mind (Hoobler & Brass, 2006).

Relationship with Managers

A worker’s relationship with his/her manager describes the level of relations that exist between workers and their superiors i.e. managers, supervisors or bosses at the various levels on the hierarchical structure in an organization even when managers have the capacity or possess a certain level of power over them. Workers who enjoy great support from their managers are diligent and find their workplace friendly. As employees are the pillars of the organization, managers must ensure that they have a cordial relationship with their workers based on trust and mutual respect if they are to achieve high productivity levels from them. Therefore managers are to ensure that a deliberate and well-structured initiatives are utilized by their organizations to build foundations for solid relationships with their workforce (Rai, 2013). Businesses and managers have a duty to cater for the needs of their workforce and this can be achieved by ensuring that employees are involved in decision making processes, receive feedback in terms of criticism as well as credit for their conduct and performances as well as enjoy personal or friendly relationships rather than strictly professional relationships with their managers (Sinha & Bajaj, 2013). Sustaining decent relationships with members of an organization’s workforce is paramount and an effective way to closely monitor, evaluate and control the productivity gaps of the workforce. It also boosts the individual effectiveness, efficiency and productivity levels of workers because when managers take the time to build and improve relations as well as guide workers in their various roles, they will in turn produce more quality work. Only via such decent relations as well as a strong sensitivity in management can a unified entity be built (Chapman & Goodwin, 2001). Certainly, in large establishments, staying connected with a huge amount of workers can prove to be an intimidating task. It may be true that members of a workforce have personal relations with their immediate bosses, however that doesn’t always give the workers an assurance that their organizations care for them as individuals, therefore the kind of relationships employees share with their managers really matters as having a faithful and dedicated workforce can be very vital to an organization as having a loyal customer base (Gillenson & Sanders, 2005). Furthermore, it is appropriate for all organizations to have a suitable and effective employee relationship management as this promotes the personal employee interactions with fellow workers and their managers. Mutually respectable relations amongst staff has a positive effect on the success of the organization. Vineet, Sinha and Bajaj (2013) stated that Good relationships with managers helps in promoting commitment, high morale and confidence in the organization. It lays emphasis on performance, stability, growth and advancement of employees for improving an organization’s competitive edge. It instils a sense of belonging and harmony amongst employees while creating room for the development of shared responsibilities which increases the confidence, determination, performance, productivity of workers. This in turn enables as well as encourage them to improve organizational productivity. In addition, it reduces organizational conflict, promotes trust and understanding amongst workers. It is significant as it supports and fosters good manager-employee relations, it lessens organizational conflict at both individual levels and group levels and helps to build trust amongst coworkers and mangers. Also in present-day circumstances where the value of respect and trust are gradually diminishing, healthy relationships with managers or supervisors helps in securing the highest possible form of mutual respect and understanding amongst staff. It offers motivational inducements and aids to workers while improving the quality of work-life balance and minimizing stress. It does not only inspire higher levels of performance on the part of the members of the workforce but also on the organizational productivity levels as a whole. Other recognized favorable effects in most organizations according to Wargborn (2008) cited in Sanders, (2005). comprises: increased productivity, inspires innovation, cuts employment and training expenses and helps in managing resources creatively.

Workers ought to know what is required of them, not only in terms of their obligations and duties but also in standards of performance. Spector (2008), posited that an employee’s relationship with his manager is also a basis for satisfaction Employees value relationship with their managers as the most important aspect of relationship with management (SHRM, 2006) cited in Spector(2008). When relationship with managers are cordial, with the manager being understanding, communicating effectively and providing frequent feedback when necessary, giving much attention to staff, wellbeing and personal issues, the employee’s productivity levels is likely to be higher (Lumley, Coetzee, Tladinyane & Ferreira, 2011). In conclusion, Good employee-manager relations contributes meaningfully to the progress of the organization and aids in creating a world class organization. Failure to build such relationships in any organization will have an adverse effect on members of the workforce which may lead to productivity gaps (Vineet et.al, 2013).

Extrinsic Motivational Factors

Also there are various forms of extrinsic motivation, this study focuses on an employee’s work environment, compensation as well as training and career development as factors that may influence an employee’s productivity levels in an organization. Extrinsic motivation, derived from outside the person or from those things that are external to the work or activity itself, positively influences behavior, performance and productivity (Ryan & Deci, 2007). The above mentioned factors are discussed below;

Work Environment

Most businesses limit the rate at which they enhance the productivity levels of their workforce to skill acquisition. The kind of work place or environs where a worker operates also affects the level at which such an organization may flourish. Akinyele (2010) suggested that about 80% of productivity concerns are as a result of the nature of a worker’s environment in most organizations. A favorable work setting guarantees the well-being of workers which invariably will encourage them to apply themselves to their responsibilities with a high level of morale which may transform into higher productivity (Akinyele, 2010).

Businesses are prone to risks and uncertainties as such the capacity of an organization to react effectively to the challenges posed by present-day dynamic nature of economic conditions will to a large extent be determined by how well an organization can effectively and efficiently use the human capital at its disposal. Brenner (2004) affirmed that the capability of an organization’s workforce to share information throughout the system is subject to the state of their work environment. Workers are likely to be more productive in a well-structured work environment. Furthermore, the quality of comfort which varies in terms of the work environment also predicts the degree of contentment as well as productivity level of workforces. This is because the productivity levels of the workforce would not be optimal, if the state of their work environments are not conducive. Better work environments augments worker’s productivity. MTD Training. (2010), described an organization’s work environment as an entirety. That is, it encompasses all forces, activities including other significant elements that are presently or potentially challenging the worker’s productivity and performance levels. It is the summation of the interrelationship existing between workers and the surroundings in which they operate. However, in toxic environments, responsible and talented workers can be transformed into irrational and unreliable workers as a coping strategy (Kyko, 2005). He cited several elements that constitute a toxic work environment therefore causing a decrease in productivity of employees and the organization as a whole. These elements are lack of transparency in management, biased managers, administrative policies, work conditions, interpersonal affiliations and compensation. Yesufu (2000) claimed that the kind of conditions workers are subjected to physically in the work place is significant to output. Managing and sustaining a work environment effectively demands making sure the surroundings are conducive, attractive, acceptable, resourceful, and motivating to the workforce thereby giving workers a sense of pride and purpose in the jobs they perform (Brenner, 2004).

Compensation

Compensation refers to the amount of money and benefits that an employee receives from his organization in return for his or her contributions to the organization (Hamidi, Saberi & Safari, 2014). This practically satisfies material, social and psychological needs of the individual (Altinoz, Cakiroglu & Cop, 2012). Compensation or pay is linked with general satisfaction and more closely linked with pay satisfaction (Lumley , 2011).

Employees receive different kinds of benefits in the form of wages, salaries and pay. Mostly individuals with good education, relevant skills and experience are unsatisfied with their job and salary packages resulting in high rates of turnover and low productivity. As such organizations make compensation plans for them in a bid to minimize the turnover and to motivate them. In other words you can say that compensation motivates employee for better performance and higher productivity levels. Compensation may also come in the form of Fringe benefits which focuses on maintaining the quality in terms of lifestyle as workers, provide them with a certain level of safety and financial security taking into consideration their family relations. Some common examples are; retirement or pension plans, medical insurance, education reimbursement and time off. Fringe benefits are forms of indirect compensation provided for a worker or group of workers as a result of their status as members of the organization (Matthias and Jackson, 2003). Also overtime is the payment over and above the normal salary and wage rates where the workers are paid extra for working additional hours (Tyson, 1999) cited in Kyko, (2005). Furthermore, Company housing or house rent allowances is offered by organizations who feel obliged to help an individual meet one of the basic needs a roof over one’s head in order to enable them have access to reasonable accommodation while on official duty. Senior employees are provided with accommodation which may be owned by the organization while other organizations reimburse rent payments (Andrews, 2009). In order to avoid a decline in employee productivity levels, workers also require health and safety packages, job security and adequate working conditions (Hamidi et.al, 2014). According to Allis and Ryan (2008), the cost of compensating workers that is in form of payments, wages, and other benefits - are a huge and increasing part of operational expenditures; yet, productivity may decrease amongst employees if such payments and benefits are not made available to them. Simply put employees are more industrious and productive when reasonable pay is attached to performance. Although compensating workers may have an effect on productivity, other factors can also increase output with little or no costs to the organization. While pay can be seen as an example, workers also appreciate being validated if they are to be productive in the workplace. The need to feel that their jobs are of value and contributes significantly to the success of the organization is important to the workers. While adequately compensating them may help, validation does not necessarily have to be financial. This is because simply thanking them can also make an employee.

feel appreciated. As regards validation, workers may also be extremely productive when they can envision where they fit in the big picture. Workers want to be seen as an integral part of the organization as such strive to be indispensable. They want to have a grip on every aspect of operations, which could also be favorable to their hopes and aspirations as this may present them with the opportunity to showcase their capabilities and skills in other areas excluding their areas of specialization. They also need to know that they have a voice and that their managers are willing to give listening ears to their opinions as well as involve them in decision making processes (Lake, 2000).

Training and Career Development

In the aspect of management, training and career development is the area responsible for structural activities intended at enhancing the performance as well as productivity levels of members of the workforce in an organization. It can also be viewed as the act of acquiring knowledge including the relevant skills and qualifications by members of a workforce necessary for organizational growth and success (Bassanini, 2004). Mathis (2003) implied clearly that for a worker or group of workers to effectively carry out their responsibilities, there is a need to constantly train and develop workers. This is vital because workers who have been adequately trained and developed with the right educational qualifications and skills are capable of providing huge payoffs for their companies evident in their loyalty to the organization, sound knowledge and understanding of operations, improved productivity levels and their contributions to overall stability and future success of the firm. The goal of engaging workers in training is to create the kind of effect that persists and can be sustained far beyond the period or duration of the training activity or program itself. The emphasis is on taking precise actions, decisions, steps as well as commitments that focuses employee attention on integrating freshly acquired skills and concepts in the workplace. It refers to the organizations formal relentless effort and commitment in constantly improving the performance level as well as contentment of its workforce through various means of skill acquisition and educational programs. Presently, these efforts in most companies have assumed an extensive and diverse form of applications ranging from trainings associated with specific highly skilled jobs to long term career growth. Today, training and career development has materialized as an official corporate function, a fundamental strategic tool used in enacting policies that aid in the achievement of an organization’s vision, mission, goals and objectives. Furthermore, firms of different sizes have recognized the importance of training and have incorporated continuous learning and other features associated with training and career development as a way of supporting the progress of their workers and also as a means of securing highly skilled workers. The value of workers and the continuous upgrade of their skills and qualifications through training is now widely accepted and viewed as a requirement in gaining employment opportunities and guaranteeing the profitability and future success of most organizations and businesses alike while promoting the right kind of workplace culture that sustains constant learning.(Batram & Gibson, 2000) suggested that training and career development aids businesses in attracting a pool of competent potential replacements for workers who may wish to leave or retire from active duty or be asked to assume a position with greater responsibilities. It also aids an organization in ensuring that it has the human capital required to sustain commercial growth and expansion. In addition, training can facilitate the utilization of progressive technologies even in smaller businesses thereby making it readily adaptable to a rapidly changing and constantly evolving competitive global environment. Training can also aid in boosting morale, effectiveness, efficiency, as well as improve the level of a worker’s productivity on the job. All of which are profitable, beneficial and is more likely than not to contribute positively and significantly to an organization’s fiscal strength and vitality (Bassanini, 2004). Furthermore most employers have found that educational and tuition aid assistance benefits are highly desired by employees. These programs have been found to aid employee retention and recruitment. The program normally covers part or all expenses related to formal educational courses as well as degree curriculums, including the expenses associated with books and laboratory supplies (Mathis, 2003). An organization can also minimize the rate of unwanted worker turnover cut costs associated with staffing and training by utilizing the funds planned for the development of fresh inexperienced workers in retaining skilled and more experienced workers. Workers can be motivated to increase their level of productivity when opportunities are provided for career advancement whether through formal education or skill acquisition programs. This creates an avenue to improve the skills and talents of the workforce while showing appreciation for their ambitions and the quality they bring to the firm. Therefore it is important to note that sometimes a well-tailored training program can mean as much to a worker as an increase in pay. Such benefits are considered to be practical since it gratifies the workers and leads to an increase in productivity and is probably not expensive when compared to a possible increase in pay (Harris, 2001). Finally, via adequate training workers are able to assess and benefit from those opportunities available for advancement in the hierarchy of the organization. This dimension is one that satisfies the psychological needs of the employee. These are opportunities for individual growth, greater and advanced roles and responsibilities as well as higher societal status. Promotion opportunities, when perceived as fair is more likely to result in job satisfaction (Altinoz et.al, 2007; Hamidi et.al, 2004; Lumley et.al, 2003; Spector, 1997), cited in Allis and Ryan (2008).

Factors That Motivate Employees To Perform In An Organization

Leadership Style: Leadership style plays an important role in the motivation of workers to performance. The style of leading adopted by a manager can affect the performance of the subordinates. The success of a leadership in influencing subordinates to performance can be affected by certain situational variables like confidence of the subordinates, experience, the need and the perception of the subordinates. It is important that before any leader adopts any style of leading, he should first of all understand the nature and characteristics of the subordinates since this can affect his performance, the subordinate of all understand the nature and characteristics of the subordinates since this can affect his performance, the subordinate perception of the boss. Leadership style can be a source of motivation.

Management by Objective (MBO): This is one of the most motivational techniques used by management. Its use in the organization has increased since its inception in 1950s. The programme is designed to encompass specific goals, participative set for an explicit time period with feedback on goals progress. This was advocated in different forms and one of the advocates is Peter Drucker, who first introduced the concept. Drucker (2009) states that the objective of the MBO should be concise statement of expected accomplishment, that is the superior and the subordinates should jointly choose the goals and decide on how they will be measured. Drucker believes that the greatest advantage of the MBO is that it allows the worker to control his productivity. This self-control will result in stronger motivation to do the best rather than just get by it.

Another philosopher of the MBO were Koontz et al. they defined it as a process whereby the superior and the subordinates jointly identifies the common goal, define individual major areas of responsibility in terms of the result expected of him and use these measures as guards for operating the units and accessing the contribution of each of his members.

An important factor in Koontz et al view point is for the subordinates and superiors to have an understanding regarding the subordinates’ major areas of responsibility. A common feature in Drucker and Koontz et al conceptions of MBO is that MBO can lead to improved motivation of the participants. This is because the superior and subordinates meets to discuss the goals of their department, which must be in line with overall goals of the organization.

The superior and subordinate meet again after the initial goals are established and evaluate the subordinate performance inters of goals. With the participation of the subordinates in discussion, establishment and emulation of the organizational goals as specified by MBO, the subordinate will be motivated to contribute his best to the attainment of the goal. MBO gives the subordinates a sense belonging can motivate them to act.

Job Enrichment: Researchers and analysis of motivation points to the importance of making job challenging and meaningful to the person doing the job. Herzberg et al popularized Job enrichment as motivational technique in their two-factor theory of motivation.

Job enrichment is referred to as the vertical expansion of the job which entails giving the individual full control and autonomy over the job he his doing.

Basically, increasing the responsibility of a job in order to increase the satisfaction associated with the job. A job may be enriched in the following ways:

Giving room for selection of jobs where better motivation is more likely to improve performance. The job must be designed to provide opportunities for achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement and growth. The technique entails enriching the job so that these factors are included.
Encouraging participation of subordinates and interaction between workers.
By giving workers a feeling of personal responsibility of their task.
By taking steps to make sure that people can see how their task contributes to a finished products and the welfare of the enterprise.
Giving people a feedback on their job performance.
Involving workers in analysis and change of physical aspect of the work environment such as layout of the office or plant, temperature lighting, and cleanliness. With job enrichment, workers interest in their job may be generated and their level of motivation will be increased.

Job Enlargement: Job enlargement is another technique of motivation. It is referred to as the horizontal expansion of the job. Job enlargement simply makes a job varied by removing dullness associated with performing the job. It means enlarging the scope of the job by adding task without enhancing responsibility. The essence of job enlargement is to prevent monotony, which kills, interest and job interesting to the workers. Job enlargement can help to motivate people to productivity.

Positive Re-Enforcement: This is another motivational technique used as a means of motivating workers to productivity. Re-enforcement is used to motivate workers to performance by encouraging a desired behaviour and discouraging an undesired baehaviour. Re-enforcement approach to the motivation of workers was first developed by a Harvard psychologist known as B.F. Skinner. This theory was first developed in learning, which entails encouraging desired behaviour and discouraging undesired behaviour. It can be used to encourage the workers to performance by rewarding a desired behaviour. For example, an engineer is given the task of designing a new piece of equipment (stimulus) the engineer exerts a high level of efforts and complete the project in time (response), the supervisor reviews the work and recommend an increase pay for an excellent work (positive re-enforcement).

Rewording a desired behavior entails monetary reward, promotion, recognition and praise. With positive re-enforcement, a behaviour desired by the management can be repeated in subsequent times.

Money: Money cannot be overlooked as a means of motivating workers to performance whether in the form of wages, piecework, bonuses, or any other incentive pay that may be given to employees for performance. The influence of money as a motivational technique is a function of the need level of the worker. A worker who is striving to satisfy his psychological needs will value money more than a worker striving to satisfy a self-actualization need. Management should understand the desire of workers before using money as a means of motivating them to performance.

Participation: Participation is another motivational technique which requires that management of any organization should also consult employees on decision affecting them and that they should be given the opportunity to air their own views with regards to such decisions. Researchers have shown that when workers are allowed to have a say in things that affect them in the work place, they tend to be satisfied.

This increases productivity and discourages absenteeism. Participation is also a means of recognition. It appeals to the need for affiliation andacceptance. Above all, it gives people sense of accomplishment.

Welfare Schemes

These are facilities provided by the organization, which are in addition to workers wages or salaries.

Problems of Motivation

A motivational problem exists within an organization when there is a discrepancy between expected and achieved results and when the discrepancy is due to lack of opportunity. For instance, the motivational problem may be expressed in terms of the failure of employees to obey a specific safety rule e.g. smoking should be restricted in certain supervisory practices (handing disciplinary problem can arise from any of the following.

Problem of Ability: the person concerned lacks the physical or mental ability to perform according to exceptions and is therefore unattainable.
Problem of Training: in this case, performance would be inadequate regardless of motivational level until training courses is accomplished.
Problem of Communication: failure to perform is caused by the employees misconception of what is expected

Leadership Style: motivation as I have either said has to do with behavior of individual in the organization. Also, the attitude of supervisors should maintain that spirit of co –operation with their employees as it has been identified that poor supervision can be a source of motivational problem. There should be that cordial relationship exiting between the supervisor and employee and hardworking employs should as a: matter of fact be recommended for promotion.

Situational Factor: the employees know what to do and how to do it but is held back by certain situational factors, such as inadequate tools obsolete methods, being paced by the performance of other of or by market conditions.

Concept of Employee Performance

Glen (2014) stated that business organizations is an ever changing beast and every year, businesses are faced with fresh challenges. The author stated that virtually all media houses constantly report the closure of industrial units, labour disputes between employers and their employees or reductions in the labour force due to recession and other economic dynamics. As a result, the image of manufacturing industries have been marred by low wages, high labour turnover, inadequate working conditions, poor performance and productivity (Githinji, 2014). Productivity can be referred to as the quantity of work that is attained in a unit of time by means of the factors of production. These factors include technology, capital, entrepreneurship, land and labour. It is the link between inputs and outputs and increases when an increase in output occurs with a lesser than comparative increase in input. It also occurs when equal amount of output is generated using fewer inputs (ILO, 2005). Bhatti (2007) and Qureshi (2007) were of the perspective that productivity can be seen as a measure of performance that encompasses both efficiency and effectiveness. It can also be referred to as the ratio of output or production capacity of the workers in an organization. It is the correlation that exists between the quantity of inputs and outputs from a clearly defined process. The performance of a business which determines its continued existence and development is largely dependent on the degree of productivity of its workers. Yesufu (2000) stated that the prosperity of a nation as well as social and economic welfare of its citizens is determined by the level of effectiveness and efficiency of its various sub components. Productivity is a total measure of the efficiency or capacity to transform inputs that is raw materials into finished products or services. More precisely, productivity is a measure that indicates how well essential resources are used to accomplish specified objectives in terms of quantity and quality within a given time frame. It is suitable when measuring the actual output produced compared to the input of resources, taking time into consideration. Hence, productivity ratios indicate the extent at which organizational resources are effectively and efficiently used to produce desired outputs. Efficiency takes into account the time and resources required to execute a given task. Therefore, it can be concluded that effectiveness and efficiency are significant predictors of productivity.

Employee Performance and Productivity

Jennifer and George (2006) Argued that the performance of workers contribute directly to an organization’s level of effectiveness, efficiency and even towards the achievement of administrative goals. It also stated that a corporation’s failure to certify that its workers are motivated has a negative influence on its organizational effectiveness and efficiency thereby affecting employee’s productivity levels concerning expected goals and objectives. According to Antomioni (1999) a worker’s level of productivity is reliant on the extent at which workers believe that certain motivational desires will be fulfilled stating that workers become demoralized as such less productive once they perceive that their desires can’t be met or gratified. Mathis (2003) suggested that productivity refers to a measure of the quantity and quality of work done, bearing in mind the cost of capital used. The greater the level of organizational productivity, the greater the competitive edge. This is because the costs associated with the production of goods and services are lesser. Better productivity ratios does not automatically mean that more output is manufactured; it could also mean that less workers or less financial resources and time were utilized in producing the similar output. McNamara (2003) stated that productivity may be denoted in form of quality, quantity, time and cost. He also stated that evaluating productivity has to with measuring the length of time it takes an average employee to produce a specified level of output. Although measuring productivity may seem difficult, it is however very significant since it directly affects organizational profitability. Brady (2000) claimed that none of the resources utilized for production in the workplace are so thoroughly examined as the human capital. Most of the activities carried out in HR Systems are intended to influence worker or organizational productivity. Compensation, evaluation systems, training and development, recruitment, job characteristics are HR responsibilities directly aimed at productivity. Bernardin (2007) clearly stated that the importance of motivational factors cannot be underestimated by an organization in increasing the productivity levels of a workforce especially when trying to gain competitive advantage. He also stated that productivity may be hard to measure, but it can be evaluated in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of workers.

Effectiveness

In general, effectiveness is referred to as the degree to which set objectives are accomplished and policies achieve what they were designed to achieve. It focuses on affecting the purpose that is achieving the required or projected results. A program or service is said to be effective if such a program is able to accomplish set objectives or estimated outcomes. As regards workers, it is a measure of how well workers productivity levels meet set goals and objectives of the organization (Yesufu, 2000). Therefore an employee is said to be effective when he/she is able to achieve desired results in line with organizational goals and objectives.

Efficiency

Efficiency on the other hand is productivity of estimated effects; specifically productivity without any form of waste. This has to do with workers abilities to work productively with minimum waste in terms of energy, time and cost. Efficiency is more or less a contrast between the use of inputs in a clearly defined process and generated outputs. For instance, given a specified number of input or resources, a decision making entity be it individual, corporate, administrative institution, or a state realizes a level of output considered to be the maximum achievable based on the present conditions, then such an entity is assumed to be efficient. However if it generates lesser than what it is estimated to generate it is said to be inefficient. As such efficiency stems from the correlation between inputs and outputs, and is referred to basically as the degree to which outputs are produced while minimizing manufacturing costs (Harris, 2001).

The Nexus between Motivation and Productivity

Generally studies conducted on the impact of motivation as it relates to workplace productivity has drawn significant attention in the aspect of management; however it has been basically disregarded by most establishments. This may be due to the fact that the concept of motivation is complex and relative in the sense that what may appeal to an individual may not appeal to another (Reilly, 2003). Generally, most organizations through the use of incentives seek out ways to motivate their work force. These incentives could be in form of good working conditions, work environment and compensation amongst others. Incentives are regarded as variable payments (monetary and nonmonetary) made to workers or a team of workers based on the quantity of output or results attained. On the other hand, it can be seen as payments made with the purpose of stimulating workers’ performance and productivity levels towards achieving greater objectives (Banjoko, 2006). Incentives can also be described as any compensation with the exception of basic wages or salaries that varies based on the capacity of the workforce to attain certain standards, such as predetermined procedures and stated organizational goals and objectives (Martocchio, 2006). Therefore one can conclude that there is a link between motivation and productivity this is due to the fact that a lack of motivation leads to a decrease in productivity and vice versa.

Also, previous studies has revealed that at various points in time, low productivity levels have been documented in virtually all establishments be it government or private sectors in Nigeria (Mbogu, 2001; Ezulike, 2001; Iheriohanma, 2006); also conclusions from further studies show that low levels of productivity can be elevated if workers are provided with adequate motivation which may or may not be financial (Tongo, 2005). In terms of productivity, members of a workforce may vary in terms of how much value they bring to the organization, which is certainly not limited to the activities they perform but also how well they perform such activities; generally organizational performance is largely dependent on the level of productivity of the workers and various departments that make up the organization. Therefore it is imperative that organizations fairly reward their workforce based on relative productivity and performance levels (Martocchio, 2006). Finally, for workers to perform at higher levels, the organization has a crucial part to play in ensuring that it highly motivates the members of its workforce in order to attract, retain, and improve productivity levels of both workers and the organization as a whole (Reilly, 2003).

The Effects of Motivation on Productivity

Productivity in general has been defined in the Cambridge International and Oxford Advance Learner’s dictionaries as the rate at which goods are produced with reference to number of people and amount of materials necessary to produced it. On the other hand, productivity has been defined as the utilization of resources in producing a product or services (Gaissey, 1993).

It has further been defined as the ratio of the output (good and services) and input (Labour, capital or management). The definition of productivity is utilized by economists at the industrial level to determine the economy’s health, trends and growth rate whiles at the project level, it applies to areas of planning, cost estimating, accounting and cost control (Mojahed, 2005).

Several factors affect labour productivity and prominent among them is the basic education for any effective labour force. In addition to the above is the diet of the labour force and social overhead such as transportation and sanitation (Heizer and Render, 1999). Furthermore, motivation, team building, training and job security have a significant bearing on the labour productivity. Coupled with the afore-stated factors, labour productivity cannot be achieved without maintaining and enhancing the skills of labour and human resource strategies. Better utilized labour with stronger commitment and working on safe jobs also contribute to affect labour productivity (Wiredu, 1989).

Effects of Motivation on Performance

The performance of employees will make or break a company; this is why it is important to find a variety of methods of motivating employees. "Motivation is the willingness to do something," wrote Stephen Robbins and David A. DeCenzo in their book

"Supervision Today." "It is conditioned by this action's ability to satisfy some need for the individual." The most obvious form of motivation for an employee is money; however, there are other motivating factors that must be considered.

Every employee within a company is different and, therefore, is motivated to perform well for different reasons. Due to the differences within an organization, it is important for a manager to get to know her employees and understand what motivates their performance. "If you're going to be successful in motivating people, you have to begin by accepting and trying to understand individual differences," Robbins and DeCenzo report in their book "Supervision Today."

Money is the most important motivator for employee performance but it is important for companies to find other ways to motivate. This involves getting to know their employees and what drives them, then making sure managers utilize appropriate motivational techniques with each employee. When appropriate motivation techniques are used, employee performance will improve.

Factors that Influence Employees Motivation

With reference to the factors that influence employees motivation, studies have revealed that majority of the employees agrees that recognition from superiors since is one of the greatest factors. Additionally, greater percentage of the employees agrees that other monetary reward other than salary motivate them. Furthermore, employees also agreed that promotion is a major factor that boost their morale in the workplace.

Further studies revealed that majority of employees agreed and agreed respectively that training increases their competence. This confirms Bergström and Ternehäll, (2005) study which suggest that banks and insurance industries have the most motivated workers. 6-items were used to measure motivation. According to Herzberg‟s Motivator-Hygiene Theory, the most successful method of motivation is to build challenge and opportunity for achievement into the job itself. Moreover, McClelland‟s theory suggests that people with high achievement needs are motivated by challenging tasks with clearly attainable objectives, timely feedback and more responsibility for innovative assignments.

In all the factors that the staff agreed as having a high contribution to their motivation are those considered by Herzberg as hygiene factors. Their presence alone does not motivate but their absence would de-motivate employees (Herzberg et al, 2004).

Impact Of Motivational Factors On Employee's Commitment

According to Bassy (2002), an organisation has to be aware of what motivates and satisfies the employees at work to stimulate them to perform their job as best as possible. A person who is satisfied with his/her work may show a high commitment level and invest much efforts towards the achievement of the organisation‟s goal and will not easily give up job (Jawahar & Dean (2007).

The underlying concept of motivation is needs, which create some driving force within individuals by which they attempt to achieve some goal in order to fulfil work expectations. This concept gives rise to the basic motivational model. The motivational process represents a very general model of human behaviour. Here, needs are the drivers or forces that initiate behaviour. People need food, affection, security, recognition and so forth. When such needs are strongly felt, individuals take action to fulfil them. People experience various levels of need satisfaction, as a result of the effort made. People‟s behaviour consequently is determined by what motivates them. Their performance is a product of both ability and motivation (Mullins, 2007). This is mathematically represented as Performance = function (ability x motivation). Motivation can be well understood, when it is explained under the two basic types: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Bateman & Snell, 2007; George & Jones, 2006).

As defined by Porter et al (1974) commitment “refers to attachment and loyalty”. It is the relative strength of the individual‟s identification with, and involvement in a particular organization. It consists of three factors: (1) a strong desire to remain a member of an organization; (2) a strong belief in, and acceptance of the values and goals of an organization; and (3) the readiness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization.

Organizations invest significant effort and resources to attract, select and retain conscientious, proactive and committed employees (Macey et al., 2009). The need for high organisational commitment is an important issue in any organisation. This is because an employee who is highly committed towards his or her organisation can be said to be productive, stable and always strives towards fulfilling the organization‟s needs as opposed to the less committed members (Jawahar & Dean (2007). Boezeman & Naomi (2007) suggests that high organisational commitment has a direct relationship with low employee turnover and increased productivity. One of the recent findings by Feather & Rauter (2004) involving permanent and temporary teachers in Victoria, Australia reveals a positive relationship between organisational commitment and organisational identification, influence, variety, skill utilization and organizational citizenship behaviours. In addition, Lopopolo‟s (2002) study on 200 hospital employees working with physical therapy indicates a negative relationship between organisational commitment and role conflict, role overload and role ambiguity. Fostering employee commitment can have a great impact on decreasing turnover rates. Research shows commitment has a positive effect on productivity, turnover and employees willingness to help co-workers” (Gibson & Tremble, 2006).

There is a distinction between self-related commitment (namely, career commitment) and other-related commitment within the work environment (namely, organizational, supervisor, and team commitment). It is established that employees could be diversely committed towards their organization, supervisor, team, or career (Bentein et al., 2002; Cohen, 2003). Employees are more concern with career commitment which can be “described by the advancement and completing of individual vocational goals” (Mrayyan and Al-Faouri, 2008). Professional commitment, on the order hand, refers to “a person‟s desire to (a) agree with and adhere to the prominent values of the profession, (b) work for the good of the profession, and (c) continue working in the profession” (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005). Likewise, occupational commitment is understood as “a psychological link between a person and his or her occupation that is based on affective reaction to that occupation” (Lee et al., 2000).

Jawahar & Dean (2007) suggest that there are three characteristics of commitment and these are: desire to „remain‟ a member of organization, belief in, acceptance of values and goals of organization, and readiness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization. According to (Armstrong-Stassen, 2004) when employees are given opportunities to participate in decision-making, it influences their motivational level, job satisfaction and commitment. The research findings by (Sousa-Poza, 2000) indicate that there is a positive relationship between participation in decision-making and job satisfaction, motivation and commitment.

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

There are different theories of motivation propounded by different scholars, interested in motivation as a phenomenon. Some of these theories are discussed below:

Abraham Maslow Theory in 1984

Abraham Maslow (1954) attempted to synthesize a large body of research related to human motivation, prior to Maslow, researchers generally focused separately on such factors as biology, achievement, or power to explain what energizes, directs, and sustains human behavior. Maslow posited a hierarchy of human needs based on two groupings: deficiency needs and growth needs. Within the deficiency needs, each lower need must be met before moving to the next higher level. Once each of these needs has been satisfied, if at some future time a deficiency is detected, the individual will act to remove the deficiency.

Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory is one of the most popular theories of work motivation in our time but it was not always so. Though the theories were introduced in the mid 1940s and until 1950s, it remained primarily in the realm of clinical psychology where Maslow did most of his development work. However, as more attention began to be focused on the role of motivation at work, Maslow’s need matching theory emerged in the early 1960s as an appealing model of human behaviour in organizations. And as a result of its popularization by Douglas McGregor (1960, 1967), the model became widely discussed and used not only by organizational psychologists but also by managers.

As early as 1954, Maslow had discussed two additional needs in his work, namely, cognitive and aesthetic. Cognitive needs are the needs to know and understand and these examples include the need to satisfy one’s curiosity, and the desire to learn. Aesthetic needs include the desire to move toward beauty and away from ugliness. These two needs were not however included in Maslow’s hierarchical arrangement and have therefore been generally omitted from discussions of his concepts as they relate to organization settings. Maslow developed the theory that human beings are motivated, i.e., stirred to action by their needs. He contrasted 2 broad categories of human motives – ‘growth motives’ and ‘deprivation motives’ The first kind is characterized by a push toward actualizations of inherent potentialities, while the other is oriented only toward the maintenance of life, not its enhancement.

Douglas McGregor Theory ‘x’ and Theory ‘y’

Theory ‘x’

This theory was developed by Douglas McGregor. The theory is based on the manger’s assumption or conception of people in the work place. The assumptions of theory x are discussed below:

Theory ‘x’

The average human beings have an inherent dislike for work and will attempt to avoid it whenever possible.
Most workers placed security above all other factors associated with work and will display little ambition.
As a result of these human characteristics of dislike for work, most people must be coerced, controlled or threatened with punishment to achieve goals. People will shrink responsibility and seek formal direction whenever possible.

Theory ‘y’

Below are some of the assumptions of theory ‘y’

Managers’ views about their employees under theory ‘y’ are:

Average human beings under proper condition not only accept but also seek responsibility.
The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of intelligence and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely and not narrowly distributed in the population.
In the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human beings are only partially utilized.
External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort towards the organizational objectives.
People will exercise self-control and self-direction in the services of objectives to which they are committed.
The expenditure of physical and mental in work is as natural as play or rest.

McGregor’s theory ‘x’ and theory ‘y’ represents manager’s view about people in the working place. In other words, the theory ‘x’ and theory ‘y’ are formulated by Douglas McGregor to

show the conceptions or view held by the practicing managers about people in the work place. The assumption of theory ‘y’ can play positive role in the motivation of workers because they can tap the innate potentialities of man in the work place.

Goal - Setting Theory

One criticism of both expecting and equity is that they focus primary on psychological processes involved in work motivation, providing little explicit theory and guidance for explaining the role of contextual forces.

Goal-setting theory overcomes these limitations by focusing on the motivational effects of goals, or targets for action.

Extensive research has show that difficult, specific goals motivate high performance by focusing attention, increasing effort and persistence and encouraging the development of novel task strategies reducing the performance effects of goal-setting as a motivational technique [Locke and lathan, 2002].

At first glance, the principle of difficult goals motivating higher performance than easy goals appears to conflict with expectancy theory. From an expectancy theory standpoint, easy goals yield greater effort-to- performance expectancy beliefs, and thus, greater motivation and performance, then difficult goals. Researchers have resolved this tension by showing that when goal difficulty is held constant, higher expectancy beliefs are associated with higher performance, but when goal difficulty varies, more difficult goals are linked with higher performance, as the attention, effort, persistence, and task strategy benefits of difficult goals appear to outweigh the costs of lower expectancy beliefs. Furthermore, expectancy beliefs moderate the effects of goal difficulty on performance, such that setting difficult goals only motivates employees to take action if they believe such action has the potential to achieve the goals (Locke & Lathan, 2002).

As goal setting theory gained prominence, scholars began to raise concerns about managers using goals as manipulative tools, and expressed growing interest in understanding the motivational effects of goals that were self-set by employees. This yielded a major controversy emerged about whether participation in goal-setting increases motivation and performance. Holding goal difficulty constant studies by Lathan and Colleagues showed null effects of participation, where as studies by Erez and Colleagues identified significant benefits. The authors collaborated, with Locke as a mediator (not a moderator), to jointly design experiments to resolve the dispute. They discovered that the effects of participation in goal-setting depend on goal commitment. When the purpose of the goals isclear, participation offers little benefit, but when the purpose is unclear, allowing employees to participate serves the functions of increasing goal commitment, and thereby motivates higher performance.

Subsequent studies suggested that participation may achieve these benefits not only through motivational mechanism, but also through cognitive mechanisms of enabling employees to share information about task strategies and building self-efficiency (Locke & Lathan, 2002). Moreover, employees who have high self-efficacy with respect to assigned goals tend to set higher goals, experience greater goal commitment, choose better task strategies and maintain goal pursuit in the face of negative feedback (Locke & Lathan, 2002).

Of course, if employees goals are not aligned with organizational goals, goal-setting can reduce rather than increase performance. The raises important ethical issues, as employees can take short cuts to achieve goals that violate important moral and legal standards. For example, Schweitzer, Ordonez, and Dounma (2004) conducted a laboratory experiment showing that when participants had unmet goals, they were more likely to cheat by over stating their productivity than when they were simply asked to do their best. These effects were observed for goals with and without monetary incentives, and were particularly pronounced when participants narrowly missed goal accomplishment (Schweitzer et al, 2004). A heated debate has ensued about whether goal-setting theory adequately addresses and accounts for these and other risks of goal-setting, such as tunnel vision, stress, reduced learning and intrinsic motivation, and excessive risk-taking and competition (Locke & Lathan, 2009). We are sympathetic to the arguments of both sides. On one hand, goal-setting theorists have acknowledge many of these risks, and demonstrating that goals can increase unethical behavior is consistent with a premise of goal-setting theory that when employees are committed to goals, they will be motivated to discover and create task strategies for achieving them (Locke & Lathan, 2002). On the other hand, although much is known about the motivation and performance effects of goal-setting. Substantially less theory and research to has addressed the conditions under which goals are more versus less likely to encourage unethical behavior and other unintended consequences (e.g. Barsky, 2008). The represents an important direction for future research: scholars should systematically build and test theories about the factors that amplify and mitigate the negative effects of goal-setting.

Job Design: Goals are an important contextual influence on motivation, but how employees’ jobs are structured also has a substaintial impact on their motivation (Fried, Levis, & Laurence, 2008; Grant & Parker, 2009; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2008; Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Parker & Ohly, 2008). Classic research on job design has focused on the principle of job enrichment, which refers to altering the structural characteristics of employee’s tasks to increase their motivating potential. The dominant approach to job enrichment is based on the job characteristics model, which proposes that motivation, satisfaction performance quality, and withdrawal behavior. Such as absenteeism and turnover are a function of three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness, responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of results.

Experienced meaningfulness is thought to be determined by three cored job characteristics: skill variety (being challenged to use a variety of one’s capabilities), task identity (completing a whole, identifiable pieced of work from start to finish), and task significance (having an impact on other people inside or outside the organization). Thus, from a motivational statement, well-designed jobs are high at least one of the dimension of skill variety, task identity, and task significance, as well as in autonomy and feedback. These effects are moderated by individual differences in growth need strength, such that employees who value learning and development should be more responsive to both the enrichment job characteristics and the critical psychological states, as well as by knowledge skill, and satisfaction with the work context.

Self determination theory

Scholars have long viewed intrinsive motivation a desired to act based on interest and employment of the work itself as a key influence on work motivation, especially in the literature on job design and creativity Zhor, & Oldham, 2004). Self determine turn theory has begun to play a central role in expanding our understand of intrinsic motivation and informing work motivation research more generally (Gagne & Deci, 2005). In work motivation research, self determination theory has been particularly useful in resolving controversies about the conditional under which rewards and incentive have positive vesus negative effect. According to self determination theory, employed have, there basics psychological needs; autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000),

Autonomy refers to the feeling of choice and discretion competence refers to feeling of connectedness and belongingness with other.

Self-determination theorists propose that when these the psychological needs are fulfilled, employees are more likely to be intrinsically motivated and internalized external goals and objectives. Thus when rewards and incentives are derived in a manner that threatens feelings of autonomy, competence, and/or relatedness, employees will tend to real negatively. For example, explaining a reward system in a controlling rather then supportive manner can compromise employees’ feeling of autonomy and relatedness. On the other hand, as long as rewards and incentives are delivered in a manner that support autonomy, competence and relatedness, in Tinsel motivation and incentives and relatedness, in tonic motivation and internalization are more likely. Other research suggest that additional features of compensation system such as variable Bersus fixed pay ratios and the number of people whose performance determines the reward (Gagne & 2008), as well as the symbolic features of rewards who distributes them, how and to whom (Mickel & Rarron, 2008) may affect self determination and intrinsic motivation.

Self-determination theory also makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of work motivation by elaborating understanding of extrinsic motivation. Rather than viewed extrinsic motivation as a unitary construct, Ryan and Deci (2000) proposed that extrinsic motivation is a matte of degree, varying along a continuum of autonomous regulation. They identified four different type of extrinsic motivation that employees experience as successively less controlled and more autonomous external (based on internal reward and punishment contingencies, such as guilt and self-esteem), identified (based on consistency with a personal value), and integrated(assimilated into one is system of values).

In the work domain, research have proposed that since external reward and incentive contingencies are virtually omnipresent, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation the coexist (Adler & 2009) if this is true, employees might be expected to invest more time and energy in their work when they find it both intrinsically motivating and are able to identify or integrate it with their values (e.g. with this predication research has shown that intrinsic and pro-social motivation interact synergistically to predict higher levels of persistence. Performance and productivity among firefighters and fundraises) (Grant, 2008a), as well as higher levels treatment employees, and participants in an experiment helping a local band make money (Grant & Berry, 2010). This, intrinsic and identified integrated motivation appears to be particularly potent in motivation (intrinsic, integrated, autonomous) are move important for performance on complex rather than simple task, where austomous motivation encourage exploration and persistence (Gagne & Dec, 2005).

Organization scholars also used self determination theory to explain the motivation effects of transformational values leadership to inspire employees, model important values, and provide and judge (2003) conducted a field study and a laboratory experiment showing that transformational leaders encourage employees to set austomous and higher performance. Interestingly, their field study suggested that transformational leadership was associated positively with antonymous motivation but had no relationship with controlled motivation, while their lab experiment indicated that transformational leadership reduced controlled motivation more strongly than it increased antonymous motivation. Further research is still needed to export this discrepancy, but the difference in the strength and content of rewards and incentive between the field and lab may be one key factor (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Autonomy refers to the feeling of choice and discretion competence refers to feeling of connectdness and belongingness with other.

Self-determination theorists propose that when these the psychological needs are fulfilled, employees are more likely to be intrinsically motivated and internalized external goals and objectives. Thus when rewards and incentives are derived in a manner that threatens feelings of antonomy, competence, and/or relatedness, employees will tend to real negatively. For example, explaining a reward system in a controlling rather then supportive manner can compromise employees’ feeling of autonomy and relatedness. On the other hand, as long as rewards and incentives are delivered in a manner that support autonomy, competence and relatedness, in Tinsel motivation and incentives and relatedness, in tonic motivation and internalization are more likely. Other research suggest that additional features of compensation system such as variable Bersus fixed pay ratios and the number of people whose performance determines the reward (Gagne & 2008), as well as the symbolic features of rewards who distributes them, how and to whom (Mickel & Rarron, 2008) may affect self determination and intrinsic motivation.

In the work domain, research have proposed that since external reward and incentive contingencies are virtually omnipresent, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation the coexist (Adler & 2009) if this is true, employees might be expected to invest more time and energy in their work when they find it both intrinsically motivating and are able to identify or integrate it with their values (e.g; with this predication research has shown that intrinsic and prosocial motivation interact synergistically to predict higher levels of persistence. Performance and productivity among firefighters and fundraises) (Grant, 2008a), as well as higher levels treatment employees, and participants in an experiment helping a local band make money (Grant & Berry, 2010). This, intrinsic and identified integrated motivation appears to be particularly potent in motivation (intrinsic, integrated, autonomous) are move important for performance on complex rather than simple task, where austomous motivation encourage exploration and persistence (Gagne & Dec, 2005).

Organization scholars also used self determination theory to explain the motivation effects of transformational values leadershiping to inspire employees, model important values, and provide and judge (2003) conducted a field study and a laboratory experiment showing that transformational leaders encourage employees to set austomous and higher performance. Interestingly, their field study suggested that transformational leadership was associated positively with antonymous motivation but had no relationship with controlled motivation, while their lab experiment indicated that transformational leadership reduced controlled motivation more strongly than it increased an tonomous motivation. Further research is still needed to export this discrepancy, but the difference in the strength and content of rewards and incentive between the field and lab may be one key factor (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Integrating job design and self-determination theories, we know much more about how intrinsic motivation is influenced by the structure than the content of employees’ tasks. According to self-determination theory, feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are important for intrinsic motivation. However, intrinsic motivation depends on enjoying the work itself, and some task are experienced by employees as “hot in themselves interesting” (Gagne & Deci, 2005). thus, even when employees feel autonomous, competent, and connected to others, they may not experience intrinsic motivation in tasks that they do not find interesting or enjoyable. Currently, we lack a theoretical framework for specifying how particular task contents are more intrinsically interesting them others, and how different employees find different types of tasks interesting. It may be the case that one of the benefits of providing and discretion to craft their jobs in ways that they find intrinsically motivating, but this has yet to be studied.

Finally, little research has explored the costs of intrinsic motivation in organizational settings. Research suggests that intrinsic motivation is less effective for performance in tasks that are simple or require considerable self-control and discipline (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Koestner & Losier, 2002). Scholars have begun to speculate that intrinsic motivation can distract attention away from organizational goals, or at the very least, is not necessarily aligned with them (Grant & Berry, 2010; Osterloh & Frey, 2002). In addition, scholars have raised concerns that employees can be intrinsically motivated toward activities that are directly destructive or harmful, such as theft and sabotage (Ostertoh & Frey, 2002). A we noted for goal-setting, more research is needed on the contingencies that affect whether and when intrinsic motivation is conducive to effective task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Gagne & Deci, 2005).

2.3 EMPIRICAL REVIEW

Various studies have examined the effect of motivation on a workers’ performance and commitment levels. Also most of these studies have obtained different results from their analysis. For instance, motivation that an individual receives be it intrinsic or extrinsic are very essential in understanding the concept of motivation. Previous studies have proposed that rewards leads to fulfillment and can affect a worker' to be affected, which directly influences the performance as well as productivity levels of the employee. Lawler (1968) stated that certain elements affect worker’s productivity levels in relation to their jobs. First, productivity is dependent on the amount of monetary or non-monetary benefits they actually receive as opposed to the amount they feel they deserve. Also, evaluating what other workers receive in comparison to their own affects their individual performances, while the worker’s contentment with both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards acquired has an effect on overall work performance and productivity levels. Furthermore, workers vary largely in the rewards they crave and the degree of value they attribute to each reward. Finally, it is observed that extrinsic rewards tend to please workers more than intrinsic because they lead to the achievement of other rewards. As such, these observations propose the necessity for a diverse reward system. The research carried out by Lin (2007) on the assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on employee productivity, The results gotten from the examination revealed that there was a significant correlation between extrinsic motivation and the productivity level of the workers, while that of intrinsic motivation was statistically less significant than extrinsic even though a correlation also existed between intrinsic factors and workers’ productivity levels. As a result, implications of the findings for future study were stated. Jibowo (2007) in the study; motivation and workplace productivity amongst workers basically assumed the similar methods as (Herzberg, 2000). The study shows some supports for the impact of motivation on productivity. However more value was placed on extrinsic factors than intrinsic. Another research by Centres and Bugental (2007), also based their inquiry on Herzberg’s twofactor theory of motivation, which divided job variables into several groups: hygiene factors and motivators. They utilized a population of 692 participants to test the rationality of the theory on worker effectiveness and efficiency levels. It was revealed that at higher professional levels, motivators or Intrinsic job elements were more appreciated, while at lower occupational levels hygiene factors or extrinsic job elements were more appreciated. As a result, they concluded that organizations that fulfills both intrinsic and extrinsic elements influencing employees’ behavior are able to gain the best out of them. Also Taylor and Vest (1992) investigated the effect of financial incentives and its removal on workers performance and productivity; it revealed that participants in the experimental group who received personal inducements performed better than those in the control group. Assam (2002) also examined the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on productivity among Nigerian workers, it showed that using a sample of employees of high and low professional levels. The assumption that low income employees will be inherently motivated and highly productive was not validated, and the assumption that higher incomes employees will place great values on intrinsic motivational elements than low income employees was also not validated. This explicitly illustrates the degree of value workers place on extrinsic motivational elements even in the absence of any significant change in motivational levels across various classes of employees in the organization. (Baase, 2009) perceived that poor compensation is linked to the profitability of an organization. Wage differences amongst high and low salary recipients was linked to the loss of morale, lack of commitment and low productivity. Also Nwachukwu (2004) attributed the decline in productivity levels of employees on some elements, amongst them is a company’s failure to cater for the wellbeing of their staff, provide adequate compensation, training and career development, adequate working conditions, suitable working environment and failure to promote cordial relationships amongst co-workers, managers and their organizations which is very demoralizing to the workforce leading to reduced their levels of productivity. An investigation which is of importance to this research, is that carried out by (Lake, 2000). He Studied the relationship between motivation and job effectiveness of various workers taking into account their attitudes to the job in question. The study concluded that most workers placed more importance on extrinsic factors than intrinsic factors citing the need to satisfy other needs as a major criteria for their choice. He also noted that majority of the research participants cited poor work environment, inadequate working conditions and a lack of resources as factors affecting worker efficiency levels in most organizations. Also, in a similar research, (Akerele, 2001) equated the comparative position of ten motivational tools such as pay, training, security, etc. considered external to the job, and other internal factors like employee well-being, good relationships with managers, responsibility etc. among 80 employees of an organization. It was assumed that greater value will be put on internal rather than external job factors. However, findings failed to validate the assumption as it was revealed that two extrinsic factors sufficient compensation and job safety were rated as the most important tools. The above are practical works undertaken by various scholars in the area of motivation and productivity. Based on these empirical examinations and conclusions, one may possibly deduce that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors are very essential in improving workers productivity levels in the workplace. As such an individual’s performance levels, can be expected to result in higher productivity if the right motivational tools are put in place.

Get this publication