Research ProposalDraft The impact ofemployee motivation on organizational productivity among knowledge workers inIndia AbstractResearchers and academicians in psychology have over the yearscontributed significantly to research and scholarship on human motivation andthe advancement of motivational theories.
Motivational theories have been useful in defining key constructs that havecome to be applied to variety of different domains by practitioners, whichinclude industrial psychology, human resource management and human resourcedevelopment among others. These include: motivation, job satisfaction,productivity, job satisfaction, commitment and so on. Motivation is largelyviewed in extant literature as a psychological process that strongly impacts employeebehavior among individuals, teams and organizations. The management of peopleat work is an integral part of the management process. This proposal examinesthe impact of motivation on productivity and job performance among knowledgeworkers in large head count organizations such as information technologyorganizations and technology-based workplaces. Research question Does motivation as a psychological process significantly impact productivityand job performance among knowledge workers in new age companies in India? Statement of the research problem The impact of motivation on employee commitmentand job satisfaction among knowledge workers in India is a relativelyunexplored area of research. The proposed perception studyseeks to understand the role of motivational drivers that impact the incidence ofemployee productivity and job performance among knowledge workers in India. Purpose of thestudyThe purpose of thisresearch is to study the impact of motivational drivers on the commitment of knowledgeworker and their roles as predictors of job performance.
ResearchobjectivesThis study is basedon the following objectives:1 To examine the influence of motivationon employee job performance. 2 To study the impact of commitmenton employee job performance.3 To investigate the relationshipbetween motivation and commitment among employees.4 To understand the influence of stress variables on employees’ performance. Relevanceof the studyThe findings of the study will helpdevelop a better insight on motivation and commitment as determinants of job performanceamong knowledge workers in India. The research will also recommend to themanagement of organizations, on how to educate and provide ways of preventingproblem that might be associated with motivation and job performance. The studywill also be a valuable contribution to knowledge and prove useful researchers,who want to carry out further research in this area.
Scope of the study The scope of this study is test and measure basic propositions frommotivation theories (Maslow, Herzberg, Vroom and so on) that can help infostering an understanding of this study on motivation and commitment aspredictors of job performance. Furthermore, a finer evaluation of researchantecedents offers two different approaches on motivation – theories on factorsof motivation and general-process theories on motivation. Recent literaturebased on empirical findings of knowledge workers points to the number ofqualitative factors that appear to determine the psychometric dimensions ofknowledge worker behavior at the workplace. Review of LiteratureAccordingto Maslow, employees demonstrate five levels of needs (Maslow, 1943):physiological, safety, social, ego, and self- actualizing.
Maslow argued thatlower level needs had to be satisfied before the next higher-level need wouldmotivate employees. Herzberg’swork explained motivation resulting in job satisfaction into terms of twofactors: motivators and hygiene (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).Motivator or intrinsic factors, such as achievement and recognition, producejob satisfaction. Hygiene or extrinsic factors, such as pay and job security,produce job dissatisfaction. Vroom’stheory is based on the premise that employee effort will lead to performanceand performance will lead to rewards (Vroom, 1964). Rewards may be eitherpositive or negative. Positive rewards will result in a highly motivatedemployee.
Conversely, a negative is less likely to ensure that the employeewill be motivated. Two major theoretical approacheshave been employed in the literature on organizational commitment: (a) theexchange approach, and (b) the investment approach. The exchange theory seeksto explains the individual’s organizational commitment depends on his or herperceived balance of reward utilities over input utilities (March and Simon,1958; Homans, 1958; Gouldner, 1960). The investment approach focuses on thetime element and states that the longer a person has been with an organization,the more that person wants to stay (Salancik, 1977).
According to Sheldon(1971), “investments” refer to participation in an organization tothe extent that possible participation in another organization is decreased. In the organizational, vocationaland industrial relations literature, the concept of organizational commitmentof employees has been researched as aa better predictor of turnover than is jobsatisfaction (Porter, Mowday and Boulian, 1974), and the role of organizationalcommitment as an indicator of the effectiveness of an organization (Schein,1970; Steers, 1975). Other empirical studies and findingsconclude that a sound financial rewards to individual performance, can beexpected to result in higher productivity. It has been found that highlyinvolved employees who were more intrinsically oriented towards their job didnot manifest satisfaction commensurate with company evaluations of performance.
They depended more on intrinsic rewards as compared to those who were moreextrinsic in orientation (Wood, 1974). Specifically, extant literature onthe behavioral dimensions of knowledge workers in at the workplace is anevolving area of research study. Empirical studies using extensive samplesurveys of respondents are few and fragmentary. From the available evidence, themost conceptual work in the field of motivation of knowledge workers was doneby Buckingham and Coffman (2005).
The authors based their findings on the fielddata gathered by researches conducted at Gallup Organization on motivation and managementusing the inclusion parameter such as ‘talented employees’. Analysis of the talented employees(understood as knowledge workers) based on extensive amount the primary data collected from respondentsacross a very large sample of organisations helped the authors to develop astandardized psychometric scale to measure behavior. This scale identified twelvekey motivating factors that influence the behavior of a knowledge worker in anorganization.
These factors determine the explicit dimension of laborproductivity such as: needed to attract, focus and keep knowledge workers inthe company. Researchers developed the hypotheses that the major factorinfluencing productivity and the loyalty of employees is the employee’s directmanager and how he manages and motivates his subordinates.The psychometric items included thefollowing twelve questions: 1) Do I know what is expected ofme at work? 2) Do I have the materials andequipment I need to do my work correctly? 3) At work, do I have theopportunity to do what I do best every day? 4) In the last seven days, have Ireceived recognition or praise for good work? 5) Does my supervisor, or someoneat work, seem to care about me as a person? 6) Is there someone at work whoencourages my development? 7) At work, do my opinions seem tocount? 8) Does the mission and purpose ofmy company make me feel like my work is important? 9) Are my co-workers committed todoing quality work? 10) Do I have a best friend at work? 11) In the last six months, have I talked with someone about myprogress? 12) At work, have I had opportunities to learn and grow? (Buckingham& Coffman, 2005). Hypotheses 1. Employeeswho experience high motivation will significantly perform better than thosewith low motivation. 2.
Employeeswho experience high commitment will significantly perform better than thosewith low commitment. 3. There willbe significant interactive effects of motivation and commitment employees’performance among staff. ConclusionThe proposal attempts to understand the relationship betweenemployee motivation and (the independent variable) and employee productivity(the dependent variable) among knowledge workers in India. The proposal has presentedthe review of literature which focuses on important research papers thatexamine the relationship between the independent and dependent variable.
Several recent research studies have also been explored to highlight theapplication of motivational theories as well as general process theories in thecontext of knowledge workers. ReferencesAllen, N. J.
, & Meyer,J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,63: 1-18.
Arnst, K. (1992). This isnot a fun business to be in now. Business Week, July 6, p.68.
Adams, J.S. (1963). Towardan understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and, Social Psychology,67(5), 422-436.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. NewYork: Free Press.Amar, A. D.
(2004).Motivating knowledge workers to innovate: a model integrating motivationdynamics and antecedents. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(2), 89-101. Buckingham, M, Coffman, C.
(2005): First, Break All the Rules, London: Simon &Schuster UK. ISBN1-4165-0266-1.Bateman, T. S., &Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of theorganizational commitment.
Academy of Management Journal, 27: 95-112.Becker, T. E.
, (1992). Fociand bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy ofManagement Journal, 35: 232-244.Benkhoff, B. (1997).Ignoring commitment is costly: New approaches establish the missing linkbetween commitment and performance. Human Relations, 50(6): 701-726.Clegg, C. W.
(1983).Psychology of employees’ lateness, absence, and turnover: A methodologicalcritique and an empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology,68:88-101.Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle,J.
M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implicationsfor research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 55-70.Davenport, T.
(2005).Thinking for Living. HVB School Publishing.
ISBN 1-59139-423-6. Drucker, P. F. (1954).Landmarks of Tomorrow.
A Report on the New ‘Post-Modern’World. TransactionPublisher London.ISBN 1-56000-622-6. Dessler, G.
(1993). Winning commitment,New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Fink, S. L. (1992). Highcommitment workplaces. New York: Quorum Books.Frost, P.
(2003), ToxicEmotions at Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Glaser, B. G.
, & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: AldineGeorge, J.
M., & Jones,G. R. (1996). Understanding and managing organizational behavior. California:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.Gordon, M. E.
, Beauvais, L. L., , R.
T. (1984). The job satisfaction and union commitment of unionizedengineers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37: 359-370.
Gouldner, A. W. (1958).Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles-II. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 2: 444-480.
Herz, D. (1990). Workerdisplacement in a period of rapid job expansion: 1983-87. Monthly LaborReview, 113 (5): 21-41.Kelman, H.
C. (1958).Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitudechange. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 51-60.Mathieu, J.
E., & Zajac,D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, andconsequences of organizational commitment. Psychology Bulletin, 108:171-194.Mowday, R. T.
, Porter, L.W., & Steers, R. M.
(1982). Employee-organization linkages: Thepsychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: AcademyPress.Mowday, R. T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.
W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247.O’Reilly, C. A., III, &Chatman, J.
(1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: Theeffect of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-socialbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492-499.