Assessing the Role of Motivation on the Future Work Performance of Students - Article Example

"Assessing the role of Motivation on the future work Performance The Case of our Business Statistic Group XYZA March, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0Overview of Motivation 1.1 Research Topic 1.2 Research Questions and Purpose 1.3Questionnaire 2.0 Short introduction indicating the topic and the relevant population. 2.1 Discussion of the chosen method of collecting data and the questions asked (including any observations about what you could improve if you had to do the exercise again). 2.2Presentation of the descriptive statistics 2.3 Presentation of the inferential statistics 2.4 Conclusion about your findings and evaluation of possible mistakes. 1.0Introduction This section starts by presenting a background discussion of the selected topic of our paper. At the end of the discussion the research questions are formulated and the main purpose of this thesis (which are two folds) are established. What this research hopes to contribute and the delimitation's of this study are also discussed. The paper uses the famous principal Agent doctrine known as agency theory to lay arguments for motivating employees in an organization as a means of aligning the interest of the principal and the agent. Agency theory is concerned with issues related to the ownership of the firm when that ownership is separated from the day-to-day running of the organisation. Here, it is assumed that in all but owner- managed organisations the owner or owners (known in agency theory as the "principal") of an organisation must vest authority to an "agent"-corporate management- to act on their behalf. Harrison & Kessels (2004: 25-26). Given this perception, the principal in an organisation feels unable to predict an agent's behaviour in any given situation and so brings into play various measures to do with incentives in other to tie employee's needs to those of their organisation. In economic literature, the significance of information asymmetries, innovation and strategic behaviour has long been recognised. There exists a considerable literature on how incentives affect a variety of management problems and the methodology for analysis of incentive problems most notably the principal agent model (Muller & Turner 2006).Against this background, this paper centers on what motivating factors are more likely to influence students of my university future job performance. 1.1Research Questions and Purpose This paper seeks to provide answers to the following research questions 1. What variables are likely to motivate university students in their future employment' 2. What role does motivation plays towards enhancing performance' 3. What are University's student's perceptions towards motivation' In order to be able to conduct an in-depth analysis of the importance, relevance and functions of effective human resource policies, I have chosen to encompass only a specific number of elements, on the role of motivation towards our university student's future performance. Methods There are basically two-research approaches, the deductive approach in which you develop a theory and hypothesis and design a research strategy to test the hypothesis, or the inductive method in which you will collect data and develop theory as a result of your data analysis (Bryman & Bell 2004, Saunders et al 2007). A research method involves collecting data, with specific instrument such as a self-completion questionnaire or a structured interview schedule or where a researcher listens to and watches others (Bryman & Bell 2004). There are however two research methods from which the above examples stem from. The qualitative and quantitative research methods. None of the method is better than the other, as each of the methods becomes efficient and effective once used in the proper context (Bryman & Bell 2004). The proposed research questions were investigated on a convenience random sample of 50 students at the University. The selected University (Our campus) o'ers an interesting site for this kind of research for the following reasons: a) the student population is often a target market for head hunters and recruiting companies, In addition as future leaders and students of the business it is worthwhile to investigate factors motivating employees. As part of the group exercise, each of our group members was asked to administer the survey in the department, communities and at work. A self-administered survey was utilized as a data collection methodology. We subdivided the questionnaire into four parts and the questions were based on the existing knowledge of motivation, established measures in the literature and other self-constructed measures. We further used the Five point Likert-type scales to measure socio-psychological constructs and the respondents' level of acceptance to different levels of motivational factors. The scales were anchored by '1 = strongly disagree' and '5 stronglyagree'.Demographic questions consisted of open and close-ended questions. On the average, it took each of our respondents approximately 10 minutes to complete the survey. A search in the University library database yields a considerable amount of literature (both books and scientific articles) concerning work motivation dating as far backs as the 1950s. To develop a strong theoretical background, several of these materials were utilised, which enabled us to select those that were considered most suitable for this paper. The books and articles were found using the search engines and databases available at the university, and the Internet. From a review of literature, a survey questionnaire was developed to collect data for the study. The survey questionnaire developed included a list of ten factors that were adapted from previous researchers already mentioned in the previous discussions. During the study period, 200 surveys were administered to USBE students who represent the target population of this study. These typed questionnaires were distributed evenly to our members and were all hand-delivered to participants, which were dropped in a box assigned for collection. Our presence was only relevant for explaining some statements in the questionnaire that the respondents needed further explanation. The questionnaire asked participants to rank the surveys ten questions according to how important each is in motivating them as future employees to perform best at work. The most important factor was ranked 5 and least important ranked 1. All factors were to be ranked following a linkert scale. The participants were as well asked to indicate their; gender, Current age. The respondents filling the questionnaire found no major problem in understanding the question as they were asked the only major problem I realized although from a very small number of respondents, was that of ranking the factors. However, out of the 125 questionnaires administered 100 responded thus, giving the paper (80%). The remaining 20% were those that were not returned by the respondents for various reasons, which could not be, accounted for. As one of our group member said" we could only move from one stage of the paper to the next after our group discussion" .In general, collecting data among Students was very interesting, as many of the respondents were happy making an assessment of their future employment situations. Therefore we consider the 80% response rate to be adequate and a good sample for this paper. Data Analysis Qualitative research has not been used extensively in motivation research. The proposed qualitative research will be the first study to relate the original and motivation factors towards future performance of students. An interpretivist philosophy will be employed by administering 125questionnaires to some students at the university campus. Because the research involves humans, ethics approval is required. The limitations of the proposal include respondents being subject to an undeterminable number of personal, economic and situational variables that affect their perceptions, as well as hindsight bias. The following sections highlight these points in more detail. Sample Having a sample of students drawn from the different department of the university helps control for bias and ensures our sample is a true representation of our population. The aim of the proposed study is to analyze how different motivating factors are likely to influence the performance of our university students in their future job positions. To effectively do so, the researcher requires an adequate sample of students from different departments. Given the scope of proposed study and the requirement for the paper, the researcher will administer a total of 125questionnaires. The process through which this would be obtain is by allowing individuals to rank a given set of adapted motivational factors according to how important each is in motivating them as future employees to perform best at work. I am of the view that by using a general survey method rather than interviews, it would be possible to overcome some of the major concerns of Maslow's critics. That is, for example the "critical incident technique" criticised by Ewen (1964, p.162), which involved asking respondents to describe exceptional events from their history These questionnaires were distributed randomly in order to ensure maximum representation of all level of students from different works of life and to avoid any possible biases. To ensure this, for example, the sample included students from different age groups, regions and studying different field of programmes within the University Sampling To identify the potential respondents, each member of the group was asked to distribute information letter soliciting the need for them to answer the questions and deposited at a special box in the University and with a questionnaire about the proposed study to each of the 125target respondents. Five days after the distribution of the information letter, the researcher collected all the questionnaires dropped at a special box reserved at the university campus for that. Instrument The instrument used in this study is a closed ended question. The study strives to uphold content validity as the guideline questions were developed from a review of prior research on motivation and performance. Additionally, pilot questionnaires were conducted to make any needed modifications to the interview schedule to ensure the guiding questions are worded properly. Semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to ask broad, open-ended questions where an informal, organized procedure is followed (Bryman, 2004). Analysis After data were collected on all the factors, excel computer programme was used to present the results. The collective rank order was determined by entering the ranking given to each of the 10 factors in the survey questionnaire. After entering the rankings given to each factor by each respondent, the total or sum of all the rankings for that factor was totalled. The factor with the least or lowest sum, was ranked number 5 or the last factor and the factor with the highest sum was ranked 1 or first. The same procedure was used to analyse the ranking of factors between the different subgroups. This system of data analysis was found to be more appropriate as different participants gave a different ranking for the same factor, and this was the simplest method that we could use to present the results. Data Presentation and Findings The respondents were divided into various categories, something that the original Maslow study did not do. As there are differences between what motivates employees and what employees want over time, it is possible that there may also be differences between categories of employees based on their gender and age. The figure below shows the subgroups studied in the survey, the number of respondent and percentage of the subgroup representing the total of 100 respondents. Subgroups Number of Respondents Percentage of Total Res Gender 100 Male Female 65 35 65 35 Age Group 20 or less 21-25 26-30 Above 30 14 26 35 25 14 26 35 25 It can be observed from the above explanation that, the subgroups were fairly a representation of the population, the fact that many respondents fell between the age of 21 to 30 shows that, most student at the university falls within the age group. A survey questionnaire administered to respondents asked participants to rank the ten motivational factors according to how each factor would influence them at work. The most important factor was to be ranked 5 and the least important factor was to be ranked 1.All factors were to be ranked and no rank could be used more than once. The figure below presents the collective rank order of the 10 motivational factors according to how important each is in influencing the respondents. Rank Factor A B C% Job Satisfaction 431 29 29 Promotion and Expectations 327 21 21 Recognition 286 15 15 Good Salary 229 9 9 Organisational Management Style 210 8 8 Satisfying Goals 177 5 5 Team Spirit 139 5 5 Good Working Condition 115 4 4 Working Hours 89 3 3 Possibilities of Layoff 72 1 1 Column A-Shows the sum of the ranking given to each factor by the total respondents, the smaller the sum of the total rank, the lower the factor was ranked as a motivational factor. Column B. shows the number of times respondents ranked the factors most important Column C-shows the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular factor as most important (5) Column C Sum of respondents who ranked a factor most important *100%/ Total number of respondents who ranked any factor most important From the review of data, 29% or total of 29 of the 100 participants, as shown in column "B" in table above," ranked job satisfaction "as the most important motivational factor. In fact, it was the most popular number one motivational factor across all the categories and subgroups in this survey. The remaining 71% was shared among the 9 other factors while 1% ranked possibilities in layoffs occupying the 10th position as the least important motivational factor. The second highest ranked factor was "promotion/expectation representing 21% of the total respondents, followed by Team spirit 15%, Good working environment 9% respectively. The figures under column "B" in the figure above represent the Excel results (see apedix1). When the total ranking of each factor by each respondent was entered, the total ranking given to "job satisfaction" for example was equal to 431 followed by "Expectation/promotion" with a total ranking of 327. The least two factors: working hours and threats of layoff" were both given a total rank of 89 and 72 respectively. Note the lower the total ranking given to a factor; the less important it is as a motivational factor and the lower the total ranking the lower it is as a motivational factor. It is interesting to observe that all four factors mostly ranked by the students fall within the original Maslow study the other motivator factors were ranked 5th, 6th, and 7th respectively in the paper. The undisputed ranking of "Job satisfaction, as the most important factor (29 of the total 100 respondents) clearly shows that managers and organisations by no means should underestimate its importance. When the responses of men and women are analysed no significant differences were found in the ranking of factors or preferences of the two groups. Both men and women (though placing different rankings) ranked four of the same factors among the top five most important motivational factors. However, certain factors ranked differently by the two group needs a closer look for example women ranked High salary and goals attainment among the five most important motivational factors, 9th and 7th, while men ranked the same factors outside the top five most important factors, 5th and 6th respectively. However certain other factors between the different age groups were ranked differently. Good wages was given higher importance (ranked 5th) by the age group 21 and below 6th by 21-25 9th by 26-30 and 6th by 31 and above. Another interesting observation was the difference in ranking of good working conditions by the age groups 20 and below and 30 and above. This factor was ranked first by both groups while it was a given a low importance by the age group 21-25 and 26-30. One possible explanation could be the fact that, the age group 20 and below are still new in the labour market and still have a huge appetite for materials things like cars. While the age group 31 and above are already in to the responsible age and will prefer a secured and working environment. Conclusion and Recommendation The collective rank order of motivational factors by the entire group of 100 respondents for this thesis indicate that: (1) Job satisfaction, (2) promotions and expectation, (3) Recognition, (4) Good salary, (5) organization/management styles were considered to be the top five most important factors. (Ranked first to fifth respectively). Although these factors used in this study are the same or Similar to those used in previous studies, the ranking of these factors however, differs significantly in some cases from those reported by previous studies. Hersey &Blanchard (1969), study of industrial employees, ranked: (1) full appreciation of work done, (2) feeling of being (3) sympathetic help with personal problems, (4) job security (5) Good wages/salaries as the five top motivational factors out of ten factors. Kovach (1987) carried out a similar study of industrial employees in 1981 and again in 1986 and concluded that by 1981 what workers wanted had changed interesting work was in first position and sympathetic help with personal problems had dropped to the ninth position. Kovach further reported that by 1986 the ranking had changed further and the top five ranked motivational factors were (1) interesting work (2) full appreciation of work done (3) feeling of being (recognition) (4) job security (5) good wages/salary. The results of this study evidently show that it was mainly the growth factors (lower order needs), which were highly valued and given higher motivational importance than the traditional higher order need factors by the respondents. Maslow originally considered need factors such as recognition, promotion and responsibilities to be very important motivators. Wiley (1997, p.279) suggest that "these factors are longstanding motivators to employees performance and that the most successful method of motivating is to build challenge and opportunity for achievement into the job itself". Employee motivation evens after some 50years of research continue to be one of the problems and challenges facing organisations today. References Bryman, A. (2004) Interviewing in qualitative research, Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bryman, A. and Bell. E: (2004).Business research methods. Oxford University press, 2003 Katz, R. (2005) "Motivating Technical Professionals Today", Journal of Research Technology Management, Nov-Dec, vol. 48, Issue 8, pp. 21-30 Kovach, K.A. (1987) "What motivates Employees' Workers and Supervisors give different answers", Business Horizons, Sept/Oct, Vol. 30, No. 6,pp. 58-65 Lindner, J.R, (1998), "Understanding employee Motivation", Journal of Extension, June, Vol. No3, pp.1-8 Muller R., and Turner JR., (2005).The impact of principal-agent relationship and contract type on communication between project owner and Manager. International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 398-403 Saleh, S. (1964), "A study of Attitude change in the pre-retirement period", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 48, No.6, pp. 310-318. Saunders M., Lewis P., Thornhill A. (2000). Research Methods for Business Students. Second Edition. Financial Times, Prentice Hall. Wiley, C.(1997) "What motivates employees according to over 40 years of Motivation surveys."International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 18, No3, pp. 264-280 Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1996) "Management of Organisational behaviour", Prentice- Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, pp.34-35 Herberg, F. (1987), "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees"' Harvard Business Review, January, Vol.81, Issue 1-8,pp. 86-96. Hersberg, F. (1988) "Workers Needs: the same around the world", Industry week, 21 September, pp. 29-32, 34 Katz, R. (2005) "Motivating Technical Professionals Today", Journal of Research Technology Management, Nov-Dec, vol. 48, Issue 8, pp. 21-30 Read More