Job Satisfaction and Motivation - Research Proposal Example

Research Proposal Research Proposal Scientists normally use experiments to search for effect and cause affiliation in nature; thisis to mean that the scientists design an experiment such that changes to one factor cause a different thing to vary in a predictable manner. The changing quantities are named variables. A variable may defined as any trait, condition, or factor that may exist in varying types or amounts. IV #1: Job satisfaction (subject variable, between subjects) - Level 1: Mild to moderate satisfaction- Job Descriptive Index (JDI) score Between 15-40; Level 2: High satisfaction- JDI score greater than or equal to 50. IV #2: Promotion (manipulated variable, between subjects) - Level 1: No early promotion at the start; Level 2: Promotion begins gradually 3. Dependent Variable: Motivation. Operational definition: An individual’s internal disposition to be apprehensive with and slant positive incentives and evade negative incentive that can be measured with Employee Satisfaction Survey Questionnaire (ESSQ). This article investigates the existing relationship between job satisfaction and motivation. Job satisfaction and promotion have been taken to be the independent variable (IV) while motivation has been taken to be the dependent variable (DV). B. Hypothesis Main There is no specific significant difference between mean motivation score of the low and high satisfied employees. Motivation and job promotion remains constant of employees’ age. There is no significant connection between length of service and motivation of the employee. Interaction Basically, motivation has two dimensions, one being “encouraging the employees work more efficiently, better and effectively” from managers’ point of view the other one is “encouraging employees to perform their task in the best way with enjoyment and desire” from employees’ point of view. Job promotion has a significant effect on job satisfaction; for instance, an employee would feel more satisfied if promoted on the basis of hard work. Background Source 1: Hingar, A. (1977). Motivation and job attitudes. Jaipur: HCM State Institute of Public Administration.BioOne Online In Abstract This study presents a measure of work motivation designed to assess the motivational concepts of the meta-theory of motivation. These concepts include intrinsic process motivation, goal internalization motivation, instrumental motivation, external self-concept motivation, and internal self-concept motivation. Following a process of statement development and identification, six statements for each concept were presented to a sample of working professionals (N = 330) via a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Parallel analysis supported a 5-factor solution, with a varimax rotation identifying 5 factors accounting for 48.9% of total variance. All 5 scales had Cronbach alpha coefficients above .70. Limitations of the newly proposed questionnaire and suggestions for its further development and use are discussed. Source 2: Steers, R. M., & In Porter, L. W. (1991). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Abstract The study examined the ranked importance of motivational factors of employees at The Ohio State Universitys Piketon Research and Extension Center and Enterprise Center. The hand-delivered descriptive survey addressed ten motivating factors in the context of employee motivation theory. Findings suggest interesting work and good pay are key to higher employee motivation. Carefully designed reward systems that include job enlargement, job enrichment, promotions, internal and external stipends, monetary, and non-monetary compensation should be considered. A lot of studies have been done in the area of job satisfaction and Motivation, but it still remains uncharted to some magnitude and yet a broad understanding has not been established when it comes to researches undertaken in different work set up and at different times. One of the major challenges most organizations face presently is managing turnover of work force that might be caused by migration of so many employees. Hence it has turned to be an important research area that investigates how to reduce absenteeism and turnover and improve organizational performance (Hingar, 1977). Additionally, it has been observed severally that employees satisfied with their jobs are still not better performers; this may be as a result of lack of commitment and motivation for the organization; this viewpoint stresses the necessity of motivation study and its connection to job satisfaction. Having this background in the current study is a humble endeavor towards reconnoitering the robust relationship existing between the two very vital organizational variables which are, job satisfaction and motivation (Steers, & In Porter, 1991). The abstract was retrieved from an internet source through the university’s PsycINFO. Methods In the current study, Job satisfaction has been treated as an independent variable (IV) while motivation has been treated as dependent variable (DV). Arithmetically, relationship between job satisfaction and motivation is as shown below: M= f (JS); ‘M’ will stands for Motivation and ‘JS’ will stand for Job satisfaction. Then the IV (Job Satisfaction) has been divided into two categories: - low and high with reference to the median of the variable score in question. On top of the median score represent high job satisfaction and below the median score represents low employee job satisfaction. Subsequently, the mean motivational score of the highly satisfied worker has been compared with the mean motivational score of the lowly satisfied workers with an aim to explore the effect of satisfaction on motivation. Data collection As the research is descriptive, the study has relied on primary data that has been collected from white collar employees and was collected through standard structured questionnaires. Subjects; Sample: the data was collected from one hundred employees; that is supervisor and above out of population of one hundred and eighty employees. The respondents originated from varying age group; 25-35 years, 36-45 years and 45 and above and with dissimilar level of experience; 1-10 years, 11-20 years, and finally 20years and above, through stratified convenience sampling. The inclusion criterion is that one has to employed and over 25 years old. The respondents were to respond as either totally agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or totally disagree. Apparatus and tasks Two questionnaires one for motivation and the other one for job satisfaction have been used. Both the questionnaires are standard questionnaires and have attained the reliability test. Each questionnaire has ten questions and all are five-point like scale based questions and the respondent have to tick any from the five-point responses ranging from one to five. Response five gets five marks and one gets one mark. The above graphical representations show the outcome of motivation as a means of job satisfaction. Discussion As shown, a considerably high number of respondents have differed with the statement that, additionally, a seventeen percent totally disagreed suggesting that most employees are dissatisfied with the fact that motivation has an effect on their job performance. This is significantly higher than the number who agreed that they are satisfied with motivation effect at work place. It can be deduced that job motivation has little effect on job performance. There are other factors which may affect job performance such as working environment, the type of the supervisor and amount of work among other factors. A concern that may have contributed to these factors is that the current motivational system places too much emphasis on monetary rewards. Several employees as well had the feeling that motivations are marginal and not relative to their performance or that of the organization. Motivations should be relative and appropriate to the sum of effort that led to that particular reward. The study also established that a number of employees are satisfied with receiving money as a means of motivation. Ethics The experiment has analyzed, defended and recommended the right concept that should be used while motivating employees; there are practical ways of determining moral course of action. The recommendations are appropriate for any dealings with employees. Graphical representations; Respondent take No. of Employees Totally Agreed 9 agree 28 neutral 5 disagree 40 Totally disagree 18 References Hingar, A. (1977). Motivation and job attitudes. Jaipur: HCM State Institute of Public Administration.BioOne Online In Steers, R. M., & In Porter, L. W. (1991). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More