If we apply Hull's theory to an organization setting, the motivation to seek employment would be seen as a multiplicative function of the need for money (drive) and the strength of the feeling that been associated with the receipt of money in the past (habit).
Later, Hull added an incentive variable to his equation. His later formulation thus read: Effort = Drive x Habit X Incentive. This incentive factor, added in large mea- sure in response to the attack by the cognitive theorists, was defined in terms of anticipatory reactions to future goals.
Just as drive theory draws upon Thorndike's "law of effect," so do modem reinforcement approaches (e.g., Skinner, 1953). The difference is that the former theory emphasizes an internal state (i.e., drive) as a necessary variable to take into account, while reinforcement theory does not. Rather, the reinforcement model places total emphasis on the consequences of behavior. Behavior initiated by the individual that produces an effect or consequence is called operant behavior (i.e., the individual has "operated" on the environment), and the theory deals with the contingent relationships between this operant behavior and the pattern of consequences. It ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens to a person when he or she takes some action. Thus, strictly speaking, reinforcement theory is not a theory of motivation because it does not concern itself with what energizes of initiates behavior.
Cognitive Theories
The other major line of development in psychological approaches to motivation is the cognitive theories. Whereas drive theories viewed behavior largely as a function of what happened in the past, cognitive theories saw motivation as a sort of "hedonism of the future." The basic tenet of this theory is that a major determinant of human behavior is the beliefs, expectations, and anticipations individuals have concerning future events. Behavior is thus seen as purposeful and goal- directed, and based on conscious intentions.
Two of the most prominent early researchers in this field were Edward Tolman and Kurt Lewin. While Tolman studied animal behavior and Lewin human behavior, both took the position that organisms make conscious decisions concerning future behavior on the basis of cues from their environment.
In general, cognitive theories, or expectancy/valence theories (also called "instrumentality" theories) view motivational force as a multiplicative function of two key variables: expectancies and valences. "Expectancies" were seen by Lewin (1938) and Tolman (1959) as beliefs individuals had that particular actions on their part would lead to certain outcomes. "Valence" denoted the amount of positive or negative value placed by an individual. Individuals were viewed as engaging in some of choice behavior where they first determined the potential outcomes of various acts of behavior and the value they attached to each of these outcomes. Tolman refers to this as a "belief-value matrix." Next, individuals select that mode of behavior which maximized their potential benefits. When put into equation form, such a formulation reads: Effort = Expectancy x Valence.
This conceptualization of the motivational process differs from drive theory in several respects. First, while drive theory emphasizes past stimulus-response connections in the determination of present behavior, expectancy/valence theory stresses anticipation of response-outcome connections.
Second as pointed out by Atkinson (1964), a difference exists between the two with regard to what is activated by a drive (in drive theory) or expectancy (in expectancy/valence). In drive theory, the magnitude of the goal is seen as a source of general excitement; that is, it represents a nonselective influence on performance. In expectancy/valence theory, on the other hand, positively valent outcomes are seen as acting selectively to stimulate particular forms that should lead to these outcomes.
However, while several differences can thus be found between drive theories and cognitive theories, the two approaches actually share many of the same concepts. Both stress the importance of some form of goal orientation; that is, both posit the existence of some reward or outcome that is desired and sought. Moreover, both theories include the notion of a learned connection between central variables; drive theory posits a learned stimulus-response association, while cognitive theories see a learned association between behavior and outcome.
Alderfer's ERG Theory
Maslow's research supporting his theory was largely limited to analyzing the biographies of self-actualizing people and his own clinical experiences. Maslow acknowledged the fact that the research supporting his theory was weak and inadequate expressed the hope that more research would ultimately be directed toward confirming and refining his theory. He noted, however, that neither animal nor human being studies could possibly examine the full range of human in an acceptable way.
The most popular refinement of Maslow's theory is one proposed by Clayton Alderfer. Based on a series of studies; Alderfer condensed Maslow's need hierarchy from five needs to just three, which he referred to as the ERG theory.
Existence needs: The existence needs refer to all forms of material and psysiological. factors necessary to sustain human existence. This need encompassed Maslow's physiological and safety needs.
Relatedness needs: These needs include all socially oriented needs which include Maslow's social needs and parts of the safety and esteem needs.
Growth needs are those related to the development of human potential which includes Maslow's self-actualization plus the internally based portion of self-esteem needs.
The Need for achievement- nAch
The most thorough series of studies McClelland and his associates concerned the need for achievement. They defined the need for achievement as behavior directed toward competition with a standard of excellence.
McClelland first step in studying the need for achievement was to develop a method for measuring achievement Rather than simply infer achievement from an individual individual’s behavior or a self-report questionnaire, McClelland and his associates test called the Thematic Appreciation Test (TAT).
Through his research McClelland identified three characteristics of high-need achievers.
- High need achievers have a strong desire to assume personal responsibility finding a solution to a problem. Consequently, they tend to work alone rather than with others. If the task requires the presence of others, they tend to choose coworkers based upon their competence rather than their friendship.
- High-need achievers tend to set moderately difficult goals and take calculated risks. Consequently, in a ring-toss game where children tossed rings at a peg at any distance they chose, high-need achievers chose an intermediate distance where the probability of success was moderate, while low-need achievers chose either high or low probabilities of success by standing extremely close or very far away from the peg.
- High-need achievers have a strong desire for performance feedback. These individuals want to know how well they have done, and they are anxious to receive feedback regardless of whether they have succeeded or failed.
The Need for Affiliation-nAff
The need for affiliation is defined as a desire to establish and maintain friendly and warm relations with other individuals. In many ways the need for affiliation is similar to Maslow's social needs. Individuals with a high need for affiliation possess these characteristics.
They have a strong desire for approval and reassurance from others. They have a tendency to conform to the wishes and norms of others when they are pressured by people whose friendships they value. They have a sincere interest in the feelings of others.
Individuals with a high need for affiliation seek opportunities at work to satisfy this need. Therefore, individuals with a high nAff prefer to work with others rather than to work alone, and they tend to have good attendance records. Evidence also indicates that individuals with a high nAff tend to perform better in situations where personal support and approval are tied to performance.
The implications for organizations of the need for affiliation are fairly straight- forward. To the extent that managers can create a cooperative, supportive work environment where positive feedback is tied to task performance, individuals with a high naff tend to be more productive. The explanation for this is rather simple. By working hard in such an environment, individuals with high nAff can satisfy their affiliation needs. On the other hand, individuals who have a low need for affiliation should be placed in positions allowing them to work fairly independently, since they prefer to work alone.
The Need for Power-nPow
The need for power has been studied extensively by McClelland and others. This need is defined as the need to control others, to influence their behavior, and to be responsible for them. Some psychologists have argued that the need for power is the major goal of all human activity. These people view human development as the process by which people learn to exert control over the forces that exert power over them. According to this view, the ultimate satisfaction comes from being able to control environmental forces, including other people.
Individuals who possess a high need for power are characterized by:
- A desire to influence and direct somebody else.
- A desire to exercise control over others.
- A concern for maintaining leader-follower relations.
Individuals with a high need for power tend to make more suggestions, offer their opinions and evaluations more frequently, and attempt to bring others around to their way of thinking. They also tend to seek positions of leaderships in group activities, and their behavior within a group, either as leader or member, is described as verbally fluent, talkative, and sometimes argumentative.
MANAGERIAL APPROACHES TO MOTIVATION
Before the industrial revolution, the major form of "motivation" took the form of fear of punishment–physical, financial, or social. However, as manufacturing processes became more complex, the traditional patterns of behavior between workers and their "patron" were replaced by the more sterile and tenuous relationship between employees and their company. Thus, the industrial revolution was a revolution not only in a production sense but also in a social sense.
The genesis of this social revolution can be traced to several factors. First, the increased capital investment necessary for factory operation required a high degree of efficiency in order to maintain an adequate return on investment. This meant that an organization had to have an efficient work force. Second, the sheer size of these new operations increased the degree of impersonalization in superior-subordinate relationships, necessitating new forms of supervising people. Third, the concept of social Darwinism came into vogue. In brief, this philosophy argued that no person held responsibility for other people and that naturally superior people were destined to rise in society, while naturally inferior ones would eventually be selected out of it.
These new social forces brought about a well defined philosophy of management. The end result of this new approach in management was what has been termed the traditional model of motivation.
Traditional Model
This model is best characterized by the writings of Frederick W. Taylor and other proponents of the scientific management school. Taylor saw the problem of inefficient production as a problem primarily with management, not workers. It was management's responsibility to find suitable people for a job and then to train them in the most efficient methods for their work. The workers having been thus well trained, management's next responsibility was to install a wage incentive system whereby workers could maximize their income by doing exactly what management told them to do and doing it as rapidly as possible. Thus, in theory, scientific management represented a joint venture of management and workers to the mutual benefit of both. If production problems arose, they could be solved either by altering the technology of the job or by modifying the wage incentive program.
This approach to motivation rested on several very basic contemporary assumptions about the nature of human beings. Specifically, workers were viewed as being typically lazy, often dishonest, aimless, dull, and, most of all, mercenary. To get them into the factories and to keep them there, an organization had to pay a "decent" wage, thus outbidding alternative forms of livelihood (e.g., farming). To get workers to produce, tasks were to be simple and repetitive, output controls were to be externally set, and workers were to be paid bonuses for beating their quotas. The manager's major task was thus seen as closely supervising workers to ensure that they met their production quotas and adhered to company rules.
As this model became increasingly applied in organizations, several problems began to arise. To begin with, managers, in their quest for profits, began modifying the basic system. While jobs were made more and more routine and specialized (and "efficient" from a mass-production standpoint), management began putting severe constraints on the incentive system, thereby limiting worker income. As factories became more "efficient," fewer workers were needed to do the job and layoffs and terminations became commonplace. Workers responded to the situation through elaborate and covert methods of restriction of output in an attempt to optimize their incomes, while at the same time protecting their jobs. Unionism began to rise, and the unparalleled growth and efficiency that had occurred under scientific management began to subside.
In an effort to overcome such problems, some organizations began to reexamine the simplicity of their motivational assumptions about employees and to look for new methods to increase production and maintain a steady work force. One such revisionist approach to motivation at work is the “human relations” model.
Human Relations Model
Around 1939, Mayo, Roethlisberger and Dickson, argued that it was necessary to consider the "whole person" on the job. These researchers said that the increased routinization of tasks brought about by the industrial revolution had served to drastically reduce the possibilities of finding satisfaction in the task itself. It was believed that, because of this change, workers began seeking satisfaction elsewhere (such as from their coworkers). On the basis of this early research, some managers began replacing many of the traditional assumptions with a new set of propositions concerning the nature of human beings.
The new assumptions concerning the "best" method of motivating workers were characterized by a strong social emphasis. It was argued here that management had a responsibility to make employees feel useful and important on the to provide recognition, and generally to facilitate the satisfaction of workers' needs. Attention was shifted away from the study of worker-machine relations & toward a more thorough understanding of interpersonal and group relations at work. Behavioral research into factors affecting motivation began.
The motivational strategies which emerged from such assumptions were several. First, as noted above, management felt it had a new responsibility to make workers feel important. Second, many organizations attempted to open up vertical communication channels so employees would know more about the organization and would have greater opportunity to have their opinions heard by Company newsletters emerged as one source of downward communication. The employee "gripe sections" were begun as one source of upward Third, workers were increasingly allowed to make routine decisions concerning their own jobs. Finally, as managers began to realize the existence of informal groups with their own norms and role prescriptions, greater attention was paid to employing group incentive systems. Underlying all four of these developments was the presumed necessity of viewing motivation as largely a social process. Supervisory training programs began emphasizing the idea that a supervisor's role was no longer simply that of a taskmaster. In addition, super- visors had to be understanding and sympathetic to the needs and desires of their subordinates. However, as pointed out by Miles, the basic goal of management under this strategy remained much the same as it had been under the traditional model; that is, both strategies aimed at securing employee compliance with managerial authority.
Human Resources Models
More recently, the assumptions of the human relations model have been challenged, not only for being an oversimplified and incomplete statement of human behavior at work, but also for being as manipulative as the traditional model. These later models have been proposed under various titles, including McGregor's (1960) "Theory Y," Likert's (1967) "System 4," Schein's (1972) "Complex Man," and Miles' (1965) "Human Resources" model.
Human resources models generally view humans as being motivated by a complex set of interrelated factors (such as money, need for affiliation, need for achievement, desire for meaningful work). It is assumed that different employees often seek quite different goals in a job and have a diversity of talent to offer. Under this conceptualization, employees are looked upon as reservoirs of potential talent and management's responsibility is to learn how best to tap such re- sources. Inherent in such a philosophy are several fairly basic assumptions about the nature of people.
First, it is assumed that people want to contribute on the job. In this sense, employees are viewed as being somewhat "premotivated" to perform. In fact, the more people become involved in their work, the more meaningful the job can often become.
Second, it is assumed that work does not necessarily have to be distasteful. Many of the current efforts at job enrichment and job redesign are aimed at increasing the potential meaningfulness of work by adding greater amounts of task variety, autonomy, responsibility, and so on.
Third, it is argued that employees are quite capable of making significant and rational decisions affecting their work and that allowing greater latitude in employee decision making is actually in the best interests of the organization. Finally, it is assumed that this increased self-control and direction allowed on the job, plus the completion of more meaningful tasks, can in large measure determine the level of satisfaction on the job. In other words, it is generally assumed that good and meaningful performance leads to job satisfaction and not the reverse, as is assumed in the human relations model.
In conclusion, human resources approach to motivation has only lately garnered attention. Many organizations have attempted to implement one or several aspects of it, but full-fledged adoptions are very rare.
Source... Miles, Porter, & Craft, 1966
THE IMPORTANCE OF MOTIVATION IN WORK BEHAVIOR
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the study of work motivation is the all- encompassing nature of the topic itself. Consider again the definition of motivation: that which energizes, directs, and sustains behavior. Following such a definition, it becomes readily apparent how many divergent factors can affect in some way the desire of an employee to perform. Steers & Porter discuss the factors affecting motivation at work place. The following is an excerpt from their book.
The variables affecting motivation can be found on three levels in organizational settings. First, some variables are unique to the individual himself or herself (such as attitudes, interests, and specific needs). Second, other variables arise from the nature of the job (such as degree of control over the particular job and level of responsibility). Third, still other variables are found in the larger work situation, or organizational environment. Factors failing into this third category would include such things as peer group relations, supervisory practices, systematic rewards, and organizational climate. In addition, it was emphasized in the model that a systems perspective is necessary. That is, instead of viewing these variables as three static lists of items, consideration has to be given to how they affect one another and change over time in response to circumstances. The individual is thus seen as potentially being in a constant state of flux vis-à-vis his or her motivational level, depending on the nature, strength, and interactive effects of these three groups of variables.
Let us consider briefly how some of the more important findings reviewed in this book relate to this conceptual framework, beginning with those variables unique to the individual. Only highlights of the major findings will be mentioned here. An analysis of the data presented throughout this volume reveals that several individual characteristics can represent a significant influence on employee performance. For instance, there is fairly consistent evidence that individuals who have higher needs for achievement generally perform better than those who have lower needs for achievement. Moreover, other evidence indicates that individuals who have strong negative attitudes toward an organization are less inclined to continue their involvement in organizational activities. Locke and Latham review field evidence indicating that personal aspiration level on a task (the level of performance for which an individual is actually trying) can be an accurate predictor of subsequent performance. Finally, investigations by Adams and others found that perceived inequity in an organizational exchange situation is associated with changes in performance levels. While many other examples could be cited, these kinds of findings generally support the proposition that personal characteristics unique to an individual can have an important impact on his or her work behavior.
A similar pattern emerges when we consider job-related characteristics. Numerous studies indicate that variations in the nature of the task itself can influence performance and satisfaction. For example, several studies have found that "enriching" an employee's job by allowing him or her more variety, autonomy, and responsibility can result in somewhat improved performance. However, many of these findings are not overly strong. Stronger evidence concerning the impact of job or task-related variables emerges when we simultaneously consider the role of individual differences in such a relationship. That is, when variations across individuals are also taken into account, evidence indicates that certain task attributes are more strongly related to performance only for specific "types" of people, such as those with a high need for achievement. For other persons, such attributes appear to have diminished effects. In other words, it appears that not everyone wants to the same degree to have an enriched job, nor does everyone necessarily perform better when assigned to one. Recognition must be given, therefore, to the background characteristics of individual employees when considering job design changes.
Finally, the work environment has a significant effect on motivation and performance. Articles presented focused on these effects and reviewed much of the research on environmental impact, and they noted the importance of such variables as group influences, leadership styles, and organizational climate in the determination of employee performance. Again, however, we must consider the interactive dynamics between such factors and other individuals and job-related factors. Thus, it is possible that high group cohesion (a work environment characteristic) may be a much more potent influence on behavior for a per- son with a high need for affiliation (an individual characteristic) than for a person with a low need for affiliation. Persons with high needs for achievement may be less influenced by the degree of group cohesion and more interested in potential economic rewards. Moreover, a job that lacks enrichment (a job-related characteristic) may be eased somewhat by a supervisor who shows a good deal of consideration toward his or her subordinates (another work environment characteristic).
The important point, then, is that when we consider the variables involved in work motivation, we must take a strong, integrative approach. We must study relationships between variables rather than focus on one specific topic. Only then can we achieve a greater understanding of the complexities of the motivational process.
THE SURVEY
Motivation has been defined as the process whereby drives towards specific goals are created by an individual out of a physiological or psychological need or deficiency. A broader definition of motivation would be that it is the rationale behind all human action and inaction. Of course, all action (or inaction) does not have a rational basis. Emotion may have an overriding effect on the rationality of an individual. A Freudian perspective of motivation would state its origin as the result of a conflict between these two often opposing forces. Then again, there is the effect of nurture, the environment in which a human is born and bred, which can play a dominant role in shaping his/her motivating forces.
In the oxford dictionary profile is described as graph representing the extent to which something exhibits various characteristics. This project was one of motivational profiling. Our “something” are the students of XLRI. The characteristics exhibited are the drives created, the needs, and the motivators. And the prime purpose of the survey is to map the extent to which particular needs motivate individual students.
The purpose of the survey conducted amongst students of XLRI in early August, 2003, was two-fold. First, two establish the motivators amongst students. By this we meant to establish not only what motivated them and to what degree, but also what did not. Motivators, here, are the ultimate goals which students in a typical (and established) business school would like to work towards. What incentives would their drives be created and directed towards and to what degree, relative to the others. Secondly, we looked at their career choices, which sector of the industry they would choose to work in, and try to form an idea regarding their choices and choice motivators. Essentially, the question asked would be, what kind of people would enjoy which kind of jobs?
The survey has been adapted from one much larger in scope, conducted throughout the 1990s all over the world, by a research team headed by Sheila Ritchie and Peter Martin.
THE FACTORS
The factors that we decided to include in our survey are:
- The need for a high salary and tangible rewards benefits and perks from work. A high factor one means that money is the overwhelming driving force. The need for money can range from recognition of its centrality in our lives to a pathological greed for it. The students surveyed, although recognizing the need for money throughout life, for comfort, emergency leisure or philanthropic purposes, would not really understand its requirement as a wholesome part of their lives, as many of them are still lead dependent lives.
- The need for structure and organization, to know exactly what is to be done in the workplace and to harbor no indecision. This need can range from desire for structure in physical objects around us (layout of an office room) to that reflected in rules and procedures, norms and expectations, as well as in culture, society and even our existential well-being. We expected this need to be quite well-developed in students as they have already come in contact with various institutions, educational and otherwise, observed norms and rules, and felt the need (or not felt) our factor 2.
- The need to have a decent level of contact with people in the workplace. This contact is of a general kind and does not involve forming deep involved relationships. It can also be expressed as the need to ‘not’ feel isolated. Much like animals, human beings like to ‘hunt’ in packs. And pack formation, evaluation, and dissolution has been a common experience for our survey group.
- The need for recognition and appreciation from others. The need for one’s efforts to be respected and for attention from fellow workers. Recognition is important as it is a significant indicator of people’s stand in life, such people are comfortable with life, they are well thought of, their opinions are taken seriously and they take care to meet people’s expectations.
- The need for power and influence over co-workers. The need to control others and competitive drive. One of the most desirable human qualities is the ability to influence others. It empowers people and in some degree or the other, is recognized and needed by all.
- The need to be creative and explorative. To not want to do mundane work but be able to exercise one’s creativity in the workplace. This need factor encapsulates both the creative, original thought and the search for new methods to get work done, to solve a problem.
- The need to develop and grow as an individual. Measures of autonomy, self-determination and self-development. People with high development motive search for it in every situation. Work, for them, is useless if it is not contributing to their learning, even if it results in accomplishment.
- The need for work to be intrinsically interesting useful, and rewarding. Work, for people with a high need for factor 8 should reflect a certain charm of its own, work being the ultimate goal, not the stepping stone to something better. We did not expect students to have a great deal of experience with this need, as even those with work experience have so for a few years, at the most. But we did expect them to understand it as such, and answer based on their understanding.
- The need to set oneself challenging goals and to achieve them. Need to be goal directed and self-motivated. Coming through a highly competitive selection process to gain admission to XLRI, the students were expected to have enough experience of goal directed behavior, and the achievement of those goals.
These nine factors reflect some of the work done on motivation theory. We felt that these would cover all the principle motivators that students here would experience. A few more factors could have been included, ones like need for sustainable relationships or need for variety in the job, but that would make our questionnaire rather cumbersome to fill up.
THE SAMPLE SPACE :
We surveyed a total of sixty students in XLRI. The breakup is as follows:
Personnel Management and Industrial Relations course : 30
Business Management course : 30
First Year Students : 30
Second Year Students : 30
Men : 40
Women : 20
Of course, the sets are not mutually exclusive.
We wanted to do a course based, batch based and gender based survey. PM&IR and BM courses being vastly different and second year students perhaps having quite a different perspective on things than the first year students (them being very new to the rigors and pressures of business school), we felt these criteria would make effective bases for segmentation.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire was one testing the patience of the above people, and we were told so in no uncertain terms. It contained 18 questions, with four choices each. The students were given 10 points which they could allocate in the manner in which they pleased across the four choices. Students were encouraged not to take too long with each question and to put down the first figures that came to their mind, that probably being the correct distribution.
The number of questions in the questionnaire i.e. 18 also had a rationale and was logically arrived at. In all nine motivational factors were tested for. All these nine factors were to be compared with all the other eight. Hence all the choices of factors had to come only 8 times in the entire questionnaire and it had to come once at least with every other factor. So we had in all 8*9 = 72 options. Each question had four alternatives. So number of final questions in the questionnaire had to be 72/4 = 18.
Each question was basically similar, with the language slightly ordered or the connotation changed from positive to negative, as in, ‘what would you like to do’, becoming ‘what would you not like to not do?’ This was done to balance fast completion of the questionnaire (emotional response), with slower, more considered answers (rational response), as this would represent both the sources of motivation within the mind of the students. Repetition of factors amongst similar questions served to reinforce the choices made.
The reason for this is that we wanted to observe how the students would rank each motivator with the other. Repetitive questions with four choices each would be a lot easier to answer than a question where one had to just rank all nine factors. Not only did the question put things into perspective, but also it would be a lot easier to rank of four factors at a time, each in relation with the other. It is easier to attend to four factors at a time than to cast one’s mind over nine factors.
Ten points were allocated to each question because we felt it would be easier to attain a level of discrimination, while at the same time accommodating reasonable extremes, with such a number. Each factor appeared eight times and the scores of each student were added up for each. So, at the end of it we got a nice, neat score, nine to be precise, for each student. Adding these up for all, across batches, courses and genders we arrived at our profile charts.
Questionnaire is attached as Appendix A.
MOTIVATIONAL PROFILE
We measured for the above 9 factors of motivation and had this response from the entire sample space well represented by the Pie chart.
The striking feature of this response is there is no run away winner. The share is well distributed with minor differences dividing the various factors.
The most surprising finding which emerged was Salary (Financial Gain) was not the winner though it was a close second with 12% response along with creativity. The winning factors with a thin margin though were Self development and interests and usefulness of work done.
The difference between the strongest motivating Factor and the least one in the choice given was a mere 4% ( 13% for Self development and interests and 9% for power and structure). This again shows that there was no clear cut preferences but a more general choice and opinion. Though the strength of factors among the different divisions like male – female, 1st year – 2nd year did show a better indication as we will discuss later.
Contact and Recognition were in the middle of the pack with 11% and 10% respectively.
The use of the forced choice method also helped a lot as this enabled to get a clearer picture otherwise an open ended question would further dilute the results.
BM – IR
This chart shows the relative importance placed on various factors by the BM (Business management) and PM-IR ( Personnel management and industrial relations) batches of XLRI students (both juniors and seniors).
These results also manage to throw up a surprise. It is generally felt that the PM-IR students being in the HR industry would be more motivated by having better social contacts. But the survey result proved otherwise. The BM students easily outscored the PM- IR counterparts 22.5 to 17. This might be due to the reason that the PM-IR students might have taken the social contact factor to be assumed to be important and have not marked it.
Some other factors worth noting are that the factor of power is seen as more important among BM students than PM-IR and also salary scored higher among PM-IR students than BM. The other factors had pretty similar scores.
MALE - FEMALE
This chart shows the relative importance placed on various factors by male and female. The results obtained under this survey showed results which are consistent with the general perception about men and women over generations. So no great surprises here….
The salary factor is pretty consistent across the gender…. the modernization factor showing up it seems. But then females outscore males in the structure factor hands down. Also the females score higher on the self development count. Again Men score higher in Power consistent with the general perception about the gender characteristics.
He female score higher on the creativity front as expected again.
The other factors show similar results like interests and contacts.
1st YEAR– 2nd YEAR
This chart shows the relative importance placed on various factors by 1st year and 2nd year students. This is a very important distinction and provides very important insight into the change in attitude towards job and how the expectations from it changes with experience and first hand information.
For the first year students Salary occupies a very important position whereas it reduces considerably in the second year students. This shows that students come to premier B-schools with high dreams about earning high incomes but by the second year they realize that money is not everything, adding value to yourself and enjoying your job is also important which is reflected by a rise in the importance of these factor.
Also creativity which had a very high score in the first year is replaced by recognition in the second showing the change in attitude and perception towards these factors.
FINANCIAL SECTOR
This chart shows the relative importance of various factors in the Financial sector and people with what kind of motivating factors prefer this sector.
One very interesting observation is the very high scores obtained by Self development and Interests and usefulness of work done. This reflects that students take this stream very seriously and as one which adds value to them.
Structure scores low against expectations given the highly formal nature of the sector as it involves risk and heavy pressure.
All other factors have a mean score pretty similar to each other.
SOFTWARE SECTOR
This chart shows the relative importance of various factors in the Software sector and people with what kind of motivating factors prefer this sector.
The findings in this survey clearly points to the trend in the industry and gives us a clear indication as to why is it happening. The high rate of attrition being currently witnessed in the industry may be attributed to the very high score given to salary as a motivating factor by people planning to join the industry.
Also the high score to self development shows the fast rate of technological obsolescence in the sector and the willingness of people to keep themselves updated.
The high score of achievement factor may also be the hidden reason for the high attrition rate.
SOCIAL SERVICE
This chart shows the relative importance of various factors in the social service area and people with what kind of motivating factors prefer this sector.
The sense of achievement and self development are the obvious highest scorers. The sense of doing something and stretching yourself is a major motivating factor in choosing this field.
The factor of social contact is also marked as significant by people going in for this area. An interesting observation as social contact was always considered as a prerequisite for this area and not a motivator to join this sector.
A surprise entry in the high scorers is recognition. This is definitely a candid confession by the sample space. May be this is always a important afctor considered taboo for discussion in public.
MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY
This chart shows the relative importance of various factors in the Manufacturing activity and people with what kind of motivating factors prefer this sector
The highest scorer being ‘contact’ managed to surprise us initially. But on deeper analysis it became clearer that people opting for this sector have to maintain good contact with two different levels and two completely different kinds of people. One is the big bosses sitting in their AC cabins and the other are the shop floor workers slugging it out in the open. So in reality this requires and provides an opportunity for greater social contact.
Achievement is a high scorer as well. Creativity is an interesting outcome as it is very important in this sector and is generally assumed.
The very low scores by salary, power and recognition are worth noting. It seems people in this sector only aim at improving their work and are not influenced by fringe benefits.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
This chart shows the relative importance of various factors in the Entrepreneurship field and people with what kind of motivating factors prefer this sector
Here again the findings are very consistent with the general perception about this sector. One point worth mentioning here is that most people in the survey opted for this choice which may be a good signal about things to come for the Indian economy in general.
The most important factors here is the mix of salary (monetary gains in this case), creativity and self development. It is an agreed perception that starting your own business requires a lot of skill and involves high risk. So it seems the motivating factors of high salary, creativity and self development provides a perfect foil for these hurdles.
So the findings are pretty consistent.
MARKETING
This chart shows the relative importance of various factors in the Marketing sector and people with what kind of motivating factors prefer this sector.
The findings here again are pretty consistent with the actual industry perception. Social contact gets the highest score. Now this is a clear indication that the sample space has interpreted the profession of marketing as sales profession which is a part of the Marketing spectrum. But again the relatively high score to creativity also indicates the strategy making spectrum ahs also been involved. So the findings give a complete picture.
Salary and interests and usefulness also have high scores giving the expectations from the field.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Atkinson – “An introduction to Motivation”
- Cavalier, Robert – “Personal Motivation”
- Luthans, Fred – “Organisational Behavior”
- Ritchie, Sheila and Martin, Peter – “Motivation management”
- Steers, Richard & Porter, Lyman – “Motivation and Work Behavior”
- Weiner, Bernard – “Human Motivation”
