Analysis of Motivation Theories - Research Proposal Example

Chapter Theoretical Foundation: There are many theories of motivation but this research will just focus on three areas, including self-determined theory (SDT); the hierarchy theory and the two factors (hygiene). These theories are appropriate basic theories to this research in terms of finding what could motivate the change in behaviour in order to improve sustainability and drive this improvement, as well as to understand how to motivate decision-making at public policy level. • Self- determined theory (SDT) Self-determined theory (SDT) is catalogued into three classifications including intrinsic motivation, which relates to motivation through encouragement to achieve activities in order to meet individuals need and benefit them and their enjoyment of life by engaging in undertaking action. Extrinsic motivation, the second category, relates to motivation stimulated in order to conclude tasks for secondary need reasons such as earning a reward, avoiding a punishment and sustaining pride. The third classification relates to absence of motivation (Tanaka, 2013). Extrinsic motivation is classified further by four groups of external regulation affected totally by external influences, for example, reward and punishment. Another form is introjected regulation, such as, stress or values imposed externally. Identified regulation as the third form involves bonding the activity with an individual aim. Integrated regulation is the fourth and the most self-determined form (Tanaka, 2013). Assor et al. (2009) suggest that interjected regulation is sorted into avoidance motivation, which challenges to avoid low self-esteem, shame, or blame, and approach motivation which goes with high self-esteem or pride in an effort to gain social appreciation. Generally, Deci and Ryan (2000) state the SDT classifications and extrinsic motivation regulations are a continuing series associated from the most self-determined form to the least and that, when gathered together, have greater capacity for motivation compared to the sum of the individual parts (see Figure 1). Figure 1: The self-determination continuum (reproduced from Deci, E.L.,and Ryan, R.M., 2000, p. 237). There is some debate around the importance of motivation and its most effective form. However, Koestner and Losier (2002) believe that identified regulation becomes more significant and positive at affecting motivation than intrinsic motivation due to its base in exciting activity and its capacity to be affected by identified regulation in that it provides power and long term determination of learning, engaging positively with actions such as academic tasks and such activities that encourage responsible morals. Some researchers believe there are some similar and different points between motivations and different affective positions. As Tanaka (2013) deems there is a correlation between introjected regulation and identified regulation with regards to individual insignificance and the values an individual places on an activity while the difference lying in that identified regulation can happen when the value an individual endorses is parted from the self-feeling of person, though integrated regulation occurs only when the values are completely integrated to the self. In this situation the behaviour of an individual is fully independent or self-determined. Identified motivation describes the direction of an individual’s behaviour that matches with their aims and identity, which are personally important (Koestner and Losier, 2002).Wang and Biddle (2001) agree in that people’s behaviour is created by identified regulation due to doing what they want rather than acting by compulsion. Other authors have suggested that intrinsic, integrated, and identified motivations are associated to improved success, positive movement, determination, exertion, and well-being (e.g. Koestner and Losier, 2002). Baard et al. (2004); Deci et al. (2001); Bono and Judge (2003) found that intrinsic form provide autonomous motivations and factors that are enhanced in the work context such as can be seen in autonomy-supportive environments, which are directed towards better well-being and efficiency. On the other hand Deci et al. (1999) comment that extrinsic rewards issued relate directly to job engagement, such as through salaried positions, and is not related to intrinsic motivational weakness as itself is effected by extrinsic rewards. Baard et al. (2004) indicate that the role of the individual and the influence that they provide with respect to self-motivating and self-determining the way in which they will engage with a specific issue is the greater consideration. Expanding this understanding out further into the professional world. As well as, Baard et al. (2004); Baard (2002); Deci and Ryan (2000) point to the fact that the self-determination theory necessarily engages in three distinct compliments that are notably absent from the other theories, this is mostly with relation to aspects of competence, autonomy, andrelatedness. Firstly, with respect to competence, self-determination theory understands an understanding of the fact that the individual employee is ultimately competent with respect to understanding those motivational strategies and how they will affect their overall best interest and interests of the firm. However, with this in mind, it must also be understood that a level of competence and of itself signifies the degree and extent to which the individual is able to make informed decisions.The informed decision-making structures that are represented with respect to the self-determination theory help to reinforce the degree and extent to which self-interests and effective choice are illustrated throughout a litany of different situations involving employee – employer relations and motivational best practice. Furthermore,the autonomy that is shown with respect to the self-determination theory is unique as compared to the other theories. Whereas, the autonomy that the individual illustrates within self-determination theory is tantamount to individual decision-making based upon both positive and negative factors., the self-determination theory approaches motivation for a much more nuanced and individualised perspective; one in which the autonomy of the individual employee is the ultimate focus upon which any and all motivational factors must be synthesised, Whereas Herzberg and the hygiene theory understand an understanding of the organizational group as a whole, which will discuss it in this chapter. Additionally, the psychological relatedness is another primal factor in helping to determine the overall degree and extent to which motivation is shown within an individual; and in turn with a group of employees. Interestingly, this psychological relatedness engenders a different approach to the way in which motivation should be understood as compared to the other elements that have already been listed. As such, the individual that is impacted upon by psychological relatedness comes to an appreciation of the fact that distinct factors within work experience will necessarily not only impact upon their own psychological well-being and the approach that they take to their work but will necessarily impact upon others, Within such a mechanism, the self-determination theory comes to be represented less as an individualised focus and more in terms of a group dynamic. Although it might seem as this particular theory attempts to compare irreconcilable differences, the fact of the matter is that these mechanisms are related with respect to the means by which an individual reconciles the world around them with respect to the challenges that they face; and by extension the challenges that other individuals or groups of individuals will likely face as a result. Even though this generally relates to negative externalities, positive externalities with respect to psychological relatedness can also be illustrated. Utilizing a for instance, the reader can adequately interpret a situation in which motivational theory is engaged by an individual within a firm/organisation as a function of the fact that it is not only beneficial to them but can be beneficial to others and the firm in general. This is the root goal towards which all self-determination theory should be employed within a particular firm or organization; due to the fact that it allows a level of tacit and innate appreciation for the goals and norms that a particular firm is trying to understand. As the scholars, which have thus far been shown point towards, self-determination theory, is a particularly effective mechanism by which decision-making structures and motivational practices can be determined. However, as the literature review would adequately note, it is not the only mechanism by which these the effectively understood. As such, the remaining portions of this literature review will specifically focus upon the case of Herzberg’s hygiene theory and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; even though these are specifically related to a more macro approach, they are nonetheless still relevant with regards the way in which businesses and organisations seek to maximise motivational tools and practices for the employees in question. • Hierarchy Theory Maslow (1943) developed a hierarchical theory of needs. This theory is based on five needs relating to personal importance and survival including physiological needs such as food, sex, drink, sleep; security needs such security of health, of employment, of property, protection; social needs such relationships, friendship, acceptance, workgroup, family; esteem needs such as confidence, achievement, respect of other, respect by others, reputation and needs for actualisation which is personal growth and fulfilment. Maslow deems that primary needs are those that are required by every individual (physiological and security needs) while the others are deemed to be secondary needs which relate to external satisfaction, of which there are many and varied ways of being met such as through monetary payment (Robbins et al, 2003, p. 158). However, (Ticu, 2013) argues that the process of decision-making for public policies needs to be focused on the people who have the responsibility to apply the decision and programmes proposed and define how they behave or their value specific actions or all the issues of objects transactions. All of that depends on the application of the decision, perfect or not, or the process the decision maker’s use to access the resources including the external or internal factors of decision. As part of decision analysis the motivation is important in order to reach the planned aims (Gautschi, 1992). The hierarchy theory is defined once the appropriate motivation theory of the decision-making process has been made on a public policies level. In trying to apply Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to motivational strategy, is immediately apparent that the firm or business organisation that seeks to effect this will need to analyse what determinants and metrics of the progression will theory are illustrated and which ones are lacking. In such a way, it is possible for Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to effectively be integrated with regard to motivational strategy and trying to understand a higher level of confusion/satisfaction/profitability from the workforce/employees in question. However, Štrach and Everett (2011) believe that culture environment is impactessentially on knowledge management, in which each culture has different influence. Therefore, the fact that even before Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was researched, employers were effectively engaging it as a means of trying to understand levels of efficiency and profitability. Inherent nature of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs creates a situation in which the analyst comes to appreciate the fact that the organisation which is involved with promoting the needs of the employees based upon these metrics is inherently well-positioned to seek to maximise motivation. There is no question that of the many vital theories that assist in understanding human resource relations and management, the overall role that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs exhibit is perhaps one of the most profound. Furthermore, is without question that the average human resource manager, or the average human resources department, seeks to operate as a means of fulfilling different needs that it stakeholder’s exhibit. Regardless of the approach that individual takes a human resources or human resource management, this fundamental role underpins nearly each and every decision that such a department makes. As a function of trying to understand these roles to a more clear and efficient degree, the following literature review of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will represent some of the salient approaches and effective understandings that different authors have evidenced over the past few years. As with the remainder of the literature review, the authors that will be surveyed and discussed will have written within a relatively recent period of time. The underlying reason for engaging relatively recent scholarship does not have to do with the fact that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has fundamentally changed or shifted over the past few decades. Instead, it is contingent upon the realisation that the information that will be derived for writing this dissertation will be timely and up-to-date; cognisant of some of the most recent changes in interpretation that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been illustrated over the past several decades. Researchers such as Ilieva and Terzieva (2000) indicate that his job/task is to oversee and improve the needs that individual employees, departments, or groups exhibit. From such a broad interpretation and understanding of the role of the human resources Department, it is clear and apparent that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is directly associated with the degree and extent to which human resource management can be affected. Moreover, scholars such as Newsome (2003) indicates that this role as an internal advocate, a role that almost all stakeholders agree human resources Department is required to exhibited, is uniquely interested in representing and improving upon reasonable needs and expectations that the employee body might exhibit. Within such a function, it is clear and apparent that the human resource department necessarily seeks to minimise costs associated with the workforce, comply by existing and relevant laws, improve and maximise efficiency, and/or reduce overall losses. As can adequately be seen, each of these tasks cannot readily be accomplished without first trying to define, measure, and seeks to improve the needs fulfilment that the individual employee, or group of employees, might exhibit. This is done not only as a means of creating harmony within the firm/business organisation, is also utilised as a means of maximising motivation. This understanding is essential to realising the role and impact that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs plays with respect to effective and proper human resource management. Furthermore, as Amoura et al. (2014) signifies, this particular dynamic exhibit a situation in which the analyst can easily recognise that maximising motivation requires an understanding and appreciation for the means by which profitability, utility, and stakeholder satisfaction in terms of needs all ties in to one another. As they believe that controlling needs and awareness impacts on being independent and physical aspect and that could be enhance by maximise the motivation. Dumitrescu (2009) discusses the fact that human resources departments and the means by creating virtual organisation and environment bywhich they motivate the employees such as having their autonomy and life style within their work , which trying to meet other extent needs that an effective, functional and enable them to continue their work on regular basic. The firm that is able to effectively manage motivational strategies and seek to engage with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and understanding the approaches that will best integrate with the employee base is necessarily the firm that is the most dynamic and able to survive within the business environment. With such a broad and categorical dictum, the reader can immediately understand the overall relevance that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has to the current business strategy that any single firm seeks to adopt. Additionally, it should also seek actively to provide an understanding within leadership and stakeholders of the overall applicability that needs fulfilment has with respect to motivation and the effect that a further understanding of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can have with respect to the overall profitability of the firm in question. Idrees et al. (2011) further signify that the human resources department is oftentimes incorrectly denoted as being responsible for motivation in and of itself. However, the fact of the matter is that motivation and motivation strategy is fabricated by the leadership of the firm and in turn provided to the human resources department as a means of affecting within the employee base. Of all the theories that will be put forward and analysed within this particular chapter, Maslow’s theory is perhaps the most simplistic. However, the reader should not understand its overall simplicity to denote that it is ineffective or overly broad. Figure 2 effectively illustrates Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and how it functions. From a cursory overview of this particular figure, the analyst can quickly denote that each successive level of motivation corresponds to an increased level of profitability/efficiency/self-actualization. As such, those human resource employees that find themselves trapped in a situation near the lower half of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will necessarily struggle with providing a level of motivation and effective work performance from those individuals within the organization that they oversee. By means of contrast in comparison, human resources departments that are able to leverage the upper half of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are much more likely to experience a greater level of profitability/growth/production as compared to the first group that has briefly been discussed. Although Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is relevant to the field of human resources and motivation, it is also necessary to understand that a requirement for food, breathing, water, sex, sleep, excretion, or homeostasis is something that is patently absurd to expect a given firm or business organization to be responsible for. However, without dismissing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Figure 2 The Maslow’s hierarchy of need (Maslow, 1943) The overall ability of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is only constricted by the degree and extent to which the human resources professional (professionals) might choose to engage with it. For instance, within interpretation of the needs and motivation that workplace security might provide, basic physiological and safety considerations can be impacted. Pojidaeff (1995) denotes that continuing to move up the list through each and every substrata of the pyramid, the engaged employer understands that human resource motivation is keenly impacted upon by trying to bring each and every employee closer to self-actualisation; the point at which the greatest potential for efficiency, productivity, and feelings of involvement and buy-in are represented. Toh and DeNisi (2005) imply that it is essential for any productive firm or business/organisation HRD appreciates and desperately work towards fulfilling the subsequent stages beside rightful treatment that remit to self-actualization. Merely making progress is not by itself. The analyst can quickly appreciate the fact that even though there is a litany of different metrics through which motivation and stakeholder support can be affected, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is perhaps one of the most important of these with respect to understanding the growth potential and success that a firm might hope to experience with the external and the internal environment. • The theory of the two factors (hygiene) Another motivation theory Ticu (2013) believes could be employed in the decision making on the public policies level is that of the theory of the two factors (hygiene). This theory was examined by the psychologist Frederick Herzberg and is based on people’s expectations of work. These are achieved through good or bad an expectation, which discusses the satisfaction degree of individuals at work that effect the decision application process. Whether the satisfaction received increases the effect on the process successfully and vice versa (Herzberg, 1968). Robbins et al. (2003) state that hygiene factors are a condition of successful implementation of decision making which contains the rules of individuals hired, the organization type, the circumstances of the workforce and the methods of the activities assessment. If these are met, the individuals’ satisfaction and needs the process has being successful. Further, Abramson (2012) indicates that Understanding the culture is essential to find the influence on the human production, that by understand which cultural elements affecting action as a function of circumstance. As he believes there is a hypothesized relations between cultural elements, context, behaviour, and outcomes. That is indicated with respect to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. However, once again, the overall level of simplicity that this particular theoretical approach signifies with respect to motivation and stakeholder this theory is somehow useless with respect to understanding a deeper nuances of motivation that is shown with respect to the employee – employer relationship. The simplicity of Herzberg’s two factor theory does not indicate that it is weak or inefficient and understanding for defining workplace satisfaction/job satisfaction. Ultimately, the motivation hygiene theory asserts that a certain number of key factors are inherent to create workplace satisfaction as well as creating workplace dissatisfaction. In trying to measure the overall factors that cause these respective satisfaction levels, stakeholders can in turn seek to interpret a quantifiable analysis of whether or not satisfaction outweigh dissatisfaction; work whether or not certain individual mechanisms can utilise/employed as a means of decreasing the satisfaction and in turn maximising dissatisfaction. However, Deng and Gibson (2008) also believe that a culture awareness is not enough but also the leader expertise an important affection on the outcome, that is applying in silent the two factors for understand what good or bad factors that effect on the leaders to employ their experience, which itself effect on the outcome of employees. Although Maslow does not indicate that human resource personnel or other individuals within a given firm or organisation are responsible for maximising the self-actualization that the individual or group of individuals might experience, Herzberg indicates that leadership is essential towards creating an environment in which job satisfaction can be work towards and dissatisfaction can be ameliorated. The independence with respect to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction is something that Lieberman (2002) also considered that more results are expected of people it depends on motivation amount, quality work environment and training supportive, which on other word satisfaction quantity.(Baril et al., 2003) state that motivation is part of affection on the return to work (RTW) strategy successful, that more satisfaction placing is more success. Which support what Herzbergis having the most oversight and potential with regards to effecting job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Accordingly, in order to appreciate and understand Herzberg’s motivation theory, it was necessary to engage with the understanding that a separate but equal focus upon minimising job dissatisfaction and maximising job satisfaction must be taken yet. As Mizuno et al. (2006) postulates, the crux of this matter has to do with human resources and the overall level and extent to which human resource stakeholder/manager can seek to analyse the environment in which they perform operations and denote those factors that are both healthy and unhealthy to the level of satisfaction that exists within the firm/organisation/company. This entire process is not even possible until the point at which a survey and/or analysis of the given company is performed. Thus far, the scholarship that has been engaged has been concentric upon providing a merely theoretical interpretation of either Maslow or Herzberg. However, from an interpretation of the information that has recently been related, with regard to the hygiene theory, it is immediately understandable that certain incentives, job characteristics, or other factors can be utilised as a means of decreasing job dissatisfaction and/or maximising job satisfaction. As such, Zoogah and Abbey (2010) found that motivations – integration, learning, and legitimacy are created by social context that influenced the employers’ preferences. • Conceptual Framework: Even though there are certain levels of inherent similarity between Herzberg’s hygiene theory and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the two-factor model is effectively differentiated from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in that it is not progressive and is slightly more simplistic with respect to the actual means of implementation. Yet, another level of comparison that can be made has to do with the fact that the two-factor model is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs renamed. What is meant by this has to do with the fact that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs illustrates self-actualisation as the ultimate pinnacle of what each preceding level has sought to achieve. By means of contrast and comparison, Herzberg’s hygiene theory, or two-factor theory, is effectively concerned only with the process of self-actualisation and the means by which satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction can improve or take away from the exhibition of this determinant. In contrast to the above representation of scholarship on the topic, it must be appreciated that the theories relate to both internal and external components of motivation. These in turn impact on the way in which goals are understood and applied; both within the individual context as well as within the group context. An illustration of this can be seen with respect to the way in which SDT can be effectively applied in certain situations and ineffectively applied within others. Taking this illustration back to a more specific exemplification, one can use the case of Qatar and the means by which Qataris are rewarded for applying renewable energy. The motivation for this particular action is based on the fact that they are encouraged by the state to behave in way that includes external regulation. The inverse of this would be a situation in which motivation for efficiency products in their homes would be born solely out of self-volition and/or a sense of duty and responsibility. In the experience of this study, it is expected that external regulations serve as a far larger motivation for behaviour as compared to the internal motivation that has been referenced briefly above. However, prior to coming to the appreciation that internal motivation is useless or without merit, it should be understood that the sense of reputation is a powerful mechanism by which the identity and culture of Qatar is formed. Therefore, individuals not only care about the regulations that define the law, they are also intimately concerned with the manner by which society and indeed individuals within society define them and the basis through which this definition impacts upon other aspects of their interaction and daily life. As a function of this dynamic, it is necessary to note that the theoretical interpretation of motivation leaves distinct gaps for the researcher; namely the differential that exists between internal and external influence and how this is achieved; or whether or not it can be engaged simultaneously. Furthermore, a secondary gap is contingent on the fact that many researchers have focused on punishment of external regulation rather than the pleasure of reward. References Chapter 1: Theoretical Foundation ABRAMSON, C. M., 2012. From Either-Or to When and How: A Context-Dependent Model of Culture in Action. Journal For The Theory Of Social Behaviour, 42(2), pp. 155-180. Amoura, C., Berjot, S., Gillet, N., and Altintas, E., 2014. Desire for control, perception of control: their impact on autonomous motivation and psychological adjustment. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), pp. 323-335. Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., and Kaplan, A., 2009. Identified versus introjected approach and introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: the limited benefits of self-worth strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (2), pp. 482-49. Baard, P. P., 2002. Intrinsic need satisfaction in organizations: A motivational basis of success in for-profit and not-for-profit settings. In:E. L. Deci. and R. M. Ryan, ed. Handbook of self-determination research. NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002, pp. 255-275. Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DcAe2b7L-RgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=self-determination+research&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6_w8VODKC-PN7QasmYGQCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=self-determination%20research&f=false [Accessed 04 June 2014]. Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M., 2004. Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), pp. 2045–2068. Baril, R., Clarke, J., Friesen, M., Stock, S., and Cole, D., 2003. Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: a qualitative study in three Canadian provinces, Social Science and Medicine, 57, pp. 2101-2114. Bono, J. E., and Judge, T. A., 2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), pp. 554–571. Deci , E. L., and Ryan, R. M., 2000. The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp.227-268. Deci , E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., and Kornazheva, B. P., 2001. Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), pp. 930–942. Deci , E. L., Ryan, R. M., and Koestner. R., 1999. Ameta-Analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewords on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin.125 (6).pp627-668. Deng, L., and Gibson, P., 2008. A Qualitative Evaluation on the Role of Cultural Intelligence in Cross-Cultural Leadership Effectiveness.International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), pp. 181-197. DUMITRESCU, D. M., 2009. Human resources profile in the virtual organization based on the career ANCHORS of EDGARschine, Annals Of DAAAM and Proceedings, 20 (1), pp. 755-756. Gautschi, T. F., 1992. Needed: New Word for Supervisor. Design News, 48(6), pp.134. Herzberg, F., 1968. One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?. Edition. Harvard Business Press. Idrees, F., Javed, B., and Ahmed, F., 2011. Evaluation of expatriates performance and their training on International Assignments. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, 3(5), pp. 335-351. Ilieva, M., and Terzieva, S., 2000. The New State Policy for Teacher Education and Training in Bulgaria: an overview of provision for vocational education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 23, 3, pp. 299-306. Koestner, R., and Losier, G.F., 2002. Distinguishing Three Ways of Being Highly Motivated: A Closer Look at Introjection, Identification, and Intrinsic Motivation. In :E.L., Deci., and ,R.M. Ryan, ed. Handbook of Self-determination Research. University of Rochester Press: Rochester, NY, pp. 101-121. Lieberman , L., 2002. The Division of Labor. Network Magazine. 17(4), p. 78. Maslow, A. H., 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp. 370 – 396. Mizuno, M., Yamada, Y., Ishii, A., and Tanaka, S., 2006. A human resource management approach to motivation and job stress in paramedics. International Congress Series, 1294, pp. 167-170. Newsome, B., 2003. The Myth of Intrinsic Combat Motivation. Journal of Strategic Studies, 26(4), pp. 24-46. Pojidaeff, D., 1995. The core principles of participative management.Journal For Quality and Participation, 18(7), p. 44. Robbins, S.P., Odendaal, A., and Roodt, G., 2003. Organisational Behaviour: Global and Southern African Perspectives. Ed. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa.Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YqOEiC9J5n4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=.+Organisational+Behaviour:+Global+Perspectives.+Cape+Town:+Pearson+Education+South+Africa&ots=JH8pF4qZGV&sig=fgTpMV4DHWpPNgiCRICxU_Hm5nU#v=onepage&q&f=false Štrach. P., and Everett, A. M., 2011. Knowledge Management is not Universal: A Contemplation of Japanese Practices. pp. 321-343. Tanaka, M., 2013. Examining kanji learning motivation using self-determination theory. System, 41, pp. 804-816. Ţicu, D., 2013. Theories of Motivation in Public Policies Process. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, pp. 925 – 929. Toh S. M., and DeNisi A. S. 2005. A Local Perspective to Expatriate Success. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), pp. 132-146. Wang, C. K. J., and Biddle, S. J. H., 2001. Young peoples motivational Profiles in Physical Activity: A Cluster Analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, pp.1–22. Zoogah, D. B, and Abbey, A., 2010. Cross-cultural experience, Strategic motivation and employer hiring preference: An exploratory study in an emerging economy. International Journal Of Cross Cultural Management, 10, 3, pp. 321-343. Read More