|
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Understanding human behavior will not only determine the why’s of past behavior but also help predict,
change, and control future behavior in order to improve the work performance of employees. Pinder (1998) defined
work motivation as “a set of energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to
initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (11).
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition
238
Early motivational models such as those created by Taylor, Maslow and Herzberg laid the foundation for
motivation research. Taylor suggested that employees had basic needs that could be met through financial
compensation but did not examine the social and psychological needs that people seek to satisfy through work.
Maslow’s hierarchy set up a useful way to categorize how people try to fulfill different needs through work;
however, the needs of an individual may change over time and are certainly not the same for all people. Herzberg
identified intrinsic and extrinsic factors that motivate people at work, but there is not a great deal of empirical
evidence that distinguishes between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors and their relative importance.
More recent research in work design such as Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (JCM) and
its related Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) identifies important connections between three primary domains: core job
dimensions (CJDs); critical psychological states (CPSs); and affective outcomes (AOs) (Hackmn & Oldham, 1975).
According to the JCM, core job dimensions can create critical psychological states that are necessary for individuals
to be motivated and to produce positive affective outcomes. In a study of seasonal hotel workers in the United
Kingdom, Lee-Ross used a multi-method approach to confirm the reliability and validity of the Job Diagnostic
Survey. The JDS serves as one means of identifying ways in which tasks and job responsibilities may be configured
to achieve more positive work outcomes and improve employee morale.
Motivation is rooted in values and values are an essential component of an organization’s culture. To
improve productivity within an organization, an individual’s values need to be understood and acknowledged by the
organization (Michaelson, 2005). Values stem from needs and provide a foundation for identifying goals (Locke &
Henne, 1986). Goals are the medium through which values direct employees in their actions. People make choices
that comply with their values (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Elizur and Sagie (1999) recommended that a holistic
view of employee values would be most productive because it incorporates both work and nonwork values.
Personality can also be a significant predictor of motivation (Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, & Wiechmann, 2003) and is
strongly related to work values (Furnham, Petrides, Tsaousis, Pappas, & Garrod, 2005). Tett and Burnett (2003)
contended that employees look for and are content with tasks, job characteristics, and people that enable them to
express their personality traits.
How well an individual fits into an organization, job, or culture, or how well a person’s needs and values
match with the culture of the organization is known as person-context fit. Cable and DeRue (2002) found that
person-organization fit was related to organization focused outcomes such as turnover decisions, organizational
identification, and citizenship behaviors while needs-supplies fit was related to job and career-focused outcomes
such as occupational commitment, career satisfaction, and job satisfaction.
Steers and Sanchez-Runde (2002) declared that national culture is embedded in values and provides
primary sources of motivation. These sources of motivation affect both work motivation levels and goals.
Extending values onto people from other cultures that vary on the dimensions of collectivism versus individualism
and power distance may unfavorably affect interpersonal communication, overall performance, and employee
motivation (Early, 2002). Bouckenooghe, Buelens, Fontaine, and Vanderheyen (2005) found that in both female
and male employees, value conflict may be a significant predictor of stress. Further, stress may result when there is
a lack of congruence between organizational values and individual values. Thus, in order to understand perspectives
of motivation, one must account for gender and cultural influences.
Isaac, Wilson, and Pitt (2004) conducted an exploratory study to determine the level of awareness about
instrumental, terminal and work values between employees and supervisors. Results demonstrated that even though
both work and instrumental values seem more relevant to achieving organizational goals, supervisors were only
aware of employees’ terminal values. Employees were only aware of supervisors work values (Isaac et al.). Thus,
supervisors and employees do not seem to fully understand fully each others values.
In 1946, Hersey and Blanchard (1969) administered a motivation survey created by The Labor Relations
Institute (LRI) of New York and published in
Foreman Facts
. Employees were told to rank the items in terms of
what they wanted from their jobs. Supervisors were told to rank the motivating factors from the employee’s
perspective. Supervisors thought that “good wages” were most important; but employees chose “full appreciation of
work done” as the most important motivating factor (
See Table 1
).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
