ABSTRACT
Our research was exclusively on work motivation, we examine progress made in theory and research on needs, traits, values, cognition, and affect as well as three bodies of literature dealing with the context of motivation: national culture, job design, and models of person-environment fit. The major problem of the study is necessitated by the fact that most organization are performing below expectations notwithstanding the amount of motivational tools adopted; and also to highlight on organizational unique corporate culture. The research explored the following objectives among others. One’ concept of motivation and its strategies; two-motivational factors that positively affects organizational performance in Nigeria and tools that facilitates effective motivational planning and implementation. The study used both primary and secondary sources of data. A total number of 92 frequency distribution; percentages and chi-square(x2) were used in testing the hypothesis. The research findings reflects our conviction that organizations and people want results not minding the fact that many organizational motivation strategy may not encourage productivity. This addresses itself to a comprehensive, total approach to productivity problems as affected by poor motivational strategies. It is underlined that motivational factors affecting employee productivity or performance in the banking sector are of broadly the same as those affecting non-bank institutions. We conclude that there is a significant positive relationship between organizational motivation and employee performance, and that organizational motivation influences employee performance as well as affecting management decision significantly. We conclude that there is a significant positive performance, and that organizational motivation and employee performance, and that organizational motivation influences employee performance as well as affecting management decision significantly. We recommend that management executive should realize that people are unique and sometimes irrational and complex and may not be motivated with the same motivational tools.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page – – – – – i
Approval Page – – – – – ii
Certification Page – – – – – iii
Dedication – – – – – iv
Acknowledgments – – – – – v
Abstract – – – – – vi
Table of contents – – – – – vii
List of Tables – – – – – ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study – – – – – 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem – – – – 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study – – – – – 3
1.4 Research Questions – – – – – 3
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study – – – – – 4
1.6 Significance of Study – – – – – 4
1.7 Scope of the Study – – – – – 5
1.8 Limitations of the Study – – – – 5
1.9 Definition of Terms – – – – – 5
References
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction – – – – – 8
2.2 Conceptual Framework – – – – 8
2.3 Theoretical Framework – – – – – 8
References
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction – – – – – 51
3.2 Research Design – – – – – 51
3.3 Sources of Data – – – – – 51
3.4 Data Collection Instrument – – – – 52
3.5 Population of the Study – – – – 52
3.6 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques – – – 52
3.7 Method of Data Analysis – – – – 53
3.8 Validity of Research Instrument – – – 53
3.9 Reliability OF Research Instrument – – – – 54
CHAPTER FOUR
4.1 Introduction – – – – – 55
4.1 Presentation of Collected Questionnaire – – 55
4.2 Presentation of Responses – – – – 56
4.3 Test of Hypotheses – – – – – 64
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction – – – – 69
5.1 Summary of the Research Findings – – – 69
5.2 Conclusion – – – – 70
5.3 Recommendations – – – – 70
Bibliography
Appendix
Questionnaires
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Response Rate from Respondents – – 55
Table 4.2: Representation of Respondents Educational Qualification. – 56
Table 4.3: Representation of the Respondents’ Sex – 56
Table 4.4: Do you agree that Motivation has impacts on
organizational performance? – – – 57
Table. 4.5: Do you perform optimally when Motivated. – 58
Table 4.6: Employees’ output in your bank depends largely on Motivation 58
Table 4.7: Do you agree that Motivation affects organizational’ productivity? 59
Table 4.8: Do Motivation enhances the actualization of organizational goals? 60
Table 4.9: Do Motivation affects your quality of work in your organization? 60
Table 4.10: How satisfied are you with the organization Motivation strategies? 61
Table 4.11: What can you say with the level of impact Motivation has yielded in the organization? – – – 62
Table 4.12: How satisfied are you with the overall quality of Motivation in your organization? – – – 62
Table 4.13: Is your organizational Motivational strategies dynamically
inclined? – – – 63
Table 4.14: Observed Frequency of questions 4 to 8. – 64
Table 4.15: Expected Frequencies for Hypothesis II. – 65
Table 4.16: Chi Square Calculated for Hypothesis II. – 65
Table 4.17: Observed Frequency of questions 8 to 11. – 66
Table 4.18: Expected Frequencies for Hypothesis III. – 67
Table 4.19: Chi Square Calculated for Hypothesis II. – 67
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
At the dawn of this new millennium, Miner (2003) concluded that motivation continues to hold a significant position in the eyes of scholars. “If one wishes to create a highly valid theory, which is also constructed with the purpose of enhanced usefulness in practice in mind, it would be best to look to motivation theories . . . for an appropriate model”. Miner’s conclusion is based on a comparison with other middle range theories of organizational behavior (OB). The question remains as to whether, on an absolute standard, motivation theory and research have fared well over the last quarter of a century. In answering this question, we provide a definition of the construct and an assessment of how the field of motivation in the workplace has evolved and progressed since the year in which the last chapter (Korman et al. 1977) devoted exclusively to this topic appeared in the Annual Review of Psychology (ARP).
We selectively review theory and research, emphasizing work published in the past decade, 1993–2003, with special emphasis given to research on contextual effects and mediating mechanisms. This is because scholars (e.g., Pinder 1998) have pointed to the power of context to moderate opportunities for, and constraints against, organizational behavior. In addressing this issue, the chapter concludes with an assessment of the degree to which progress has been made to predict, understand, and influence motivation in the workplace.
Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration (Pinder 1998). Thus, motivation is a psychological process resulting from the interaction between the individual and the environment. Accordingly, the importance of context is acknowledged throughout our analysis.
However, because of space limitations, we focus primarily on national culture, job design characteristics, and person-environment fit, omitting reviews of other exogenous sources of motivation (e.g., organization climate and culture, leadership, and groups and teams). Job design is traditionally included in reviews of motivation. National culture and person-environment fit are relatively new to this literature, hence our choice of these three contextual variables.
The role of human motivation has always been considered by psychologists to be a very difficult undertaking, especially because motivation is something inside the organism. But the fundamental difficulty has actually been self imposed or, more specifically, imposed by false philosophical assumptions. Two key assumptions were that: (a) only material events could be causal, and (b) only entities that were directly, externally, perceivable could be admitted into the realm of science. Accepting these positivist premises meant that: (a) consciousness could not be considered a cause of action; and (b) making valid inferences about internal events, especially if they were mental events in other people, was logically impermissible.
Historically, motivational psychologists have tried to conform to these strictures by externalizing or materializing their key concepts. Skinnerian behaviorism, for example, externalized motivation by attributing it to reinforcers (consequences of action) and treating the human mind as an epiphenomenon. Drive-reduction theorists like Hull kept motivation inside the organism but attributed it to strictly physiological mechanisms. Both approaches assumed the validity of psychological determinism—the doctrine that man has no choice with respect to his beliefs, choices, thinking or actions. Both also barred introspection as a scientific method on the grounds that it could not be publicly verified and that, even if it were, the data obtained thereby were causally insignificant (due to determinism or materialism).
Beginning in the late 1960s the positivist paradigm in psychology began to fall apart for a number of reasons. First, it had lost support in philosophy (e.g., Blanshard, 1962). Second, the materialist approaches did not work. Human action cannot, in fact, be understood by looking at man only from the outside or only at his internal physiology.The recognition of these facts ushered in the “cognitive revolution” in psychology; it became the dominant paradigm by the end of the 1970s or early 1980s.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The problem with most organization has been how to identify and adopt a suitable motivational strategy to enhance workers performance and attain organizational goals and objectives. However, three major problems prompted the urge to carry out the research.
