The Experts below are selected from a list of 324006 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Bradley E Wright - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the role of Work context in Work Motivation a public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2004Co-Authors: Bradley E WrightAbstract:The present study represents a test of a conceptual model predicting how the organization’s Work context might influence Work Motivation. Using the frameWork provided by goal and social cognitive theories, this model of Work Motivation assesses whether aspects of the organizational Work context, such as greater goal conflict, procedural constraints, and goal ambiguity, may have a detrimental effect on Work Motivation through their influence on three important antecedents of Work Motivation: job goal specificity, job difficulty, and self-efficacy. Although the findings of a covariance (LISREL) analysis of state government employee survey data suggested a few minor modifications to this model, the results indicated that the theoretical frameWork can identify specific leverage points that can increase Work Motivation and, therefore, productivity in the public sector.
-
public sector Work Motivation a review of the current literature and a revised conceptual model
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2001Co-Authors: Bradley E WrightAbstract:This article reviews the literature on Work Motivation in the public sector, with careful attention to the underlying theoretical assumptions of this body of Work and the empirical evidence it has generated. The topic of Work Motivation has received relatively little attention in the public sector; the research that does exist has been largely data driven, guided at best by theories that have not incorporated more contemporary research. In this article I will draw on current psychological research on Work Motivation, as well as the theory and empirical evidence regarding the unique characteristics of public organizations and employees, and develop a revised public-sector model of Work Motivation that emphasizes variables such as procedural constraints, goal content, and goal commitment. J-PART 11(2001):4:559-586 In a recent article, Behn (1995) urged scholars to focus their research on the big questions in public management. One of the most important of these questions, according to Behn, concerns Motivation. Specifically, the field needs to learn how "public managers [can] motivate public employees (and citizens too) to pursue important public purposes with intelligence and energy" (p. 319). This observation, however, is not new. Perry and Porter (1982, 97) noted nearly two decades ago that "the literature on Motivation tends to concentrate too heavily on employees within industrial and business organizations." Perry and Porter proposed, as did Behn, a research agenda to improve the understanding of the Motivational context in public-sector organizations. Unfortunately, very little research has fulfilled this agenda. While Work Motivation has been a prominent area of interest in organizational behavior (Cooper and Robertson 1986) and continues to be one of the most frequently discussed topics in psychology (Rousseau 1997), it has been (Balk 1974) and continues to be (Behn 1995) largely ignored by public-sector scholars. 559/Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory This content downloaded from 157.55.39.181 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:54:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Public-Sector Work Motivation: Literature Review Admittedly, Work Motivation is a difficult concept to define or study (Rainey 1993). While numerous definitions of Work Motivation have been developed over the years, some consensus can be found around Jones's (1955, vii) assertion that Work Motivation concerns "how behavior gets started, is energized, is sustained, is directed, is stopped, and what kind of subjective reaction is present in the organism while all this is going on." Such a broad definition is slightly misleading, suggesting that Motivation is studied as an end in itself. In actuality the primary objective of Work Motivation research has not been to learn why employees act as they do but, instead, to learn how to motivate employees to perform the duties and responsibilities assigned by the organization. Consistent with this emphasis, Work performance often has been used as a proxy for Work Motivation, ignoring other determinants of performance such as employee (e.g., ability or task comprehension) and environmental (e.g., situational constraints or task demands) characteristics (Kanfer 1990). In recognition of a primary concern with performance and the limited role of Motivation in determining that performance, however, Work Motivation is considered here as inclusive of such aspects as the direction, intensity, and persistence of Work-related behaviors desired by the organization or its representatives (Mitchell 1997). Although this definition emphasizes the determinants and processes that underlie behavior, such constructs cannot be measured directly but must be inferred from a larger theory in which the antecedents of Motivation are linked to purported behavioral consequences. Even though there has been some agreement on a definition there has been little agreement on how to operationalize or measure Work Motivation, and there are a number of competing theories of Work Motivation. While no single, dominant theory exists, many recent attempts to develop a unified theory of Work Motivation have emphasized the importance of goal structures as the immediate regulator of behavior (Kanfer 1990; Katzell and Thompson 1990; Mitchell 1997). As I have noted, however, Work Motivation has failed to achieve similar interest among public-sector scholars. This lack of attention to Work Motivation in the public sector is surprising. Public-sector organizations are under constant pressure to improve their productivity and reduce their costs. Because publicsector employees frequently are stereotyped as lazy, self-serving, and misguided (Baldwin 1984; Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka 1976), a better understanding of Work Motivation is essential to any efforts to describe, defend, or improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public organizations. 560/J-PART, October 2001 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.181 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:54:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Public-Sector Work Motivation: Literature Review Furthermore, recent research on Motivation has emphasized how the interaction of environmental and personal forces influences individual Motivation, but little effort has been made to identify or discuss the potential implications these theories hold for public-sector organizations. Although there is a great deal of debate on whether fundamental differences should exist between the public and private sectors in the characteristics of employees and Work environment, there is agreement that differences do exist (Fottler 1981; Meyer 1982; Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Perry and Porter 1982; Perry and Rainey 1988; Rainey, Backoff, and Levine 1976; Whorton and Worthley 1981). Unfortunately, research generally has failed to address whether the differences between the two sectors have a significant impact on the variables relevant to organizational effectiveness in the public sector (Baldwin and Farley 1991). The study of Work Motivation can provide valuable insight into any effect these sector differences might have on a critical antecedent of public-sector productivity. My objective in this article is to advance understanding of Work Motivation in the public sector. In the first section of the article, the current research on Work Motivation in the public sector will be reviewed, with a careful examination of the current theoretical approaches and the empirical evidence that they have generated. Previous reviews of this literature have been conducted, but they are either dated (Gibson and Teasley 1973; Perry and Porter 1982) or they were intended to compare the attributes of publicand private-sector organizations (Baldwin 1984; 1987; 1991; Baldwin and Farley 1991; Rainey, Backoff, and Levine 1976; Rainey 1989; Rainey, Traut, and Blunt 1986). I will conclude the article by combining theory and empirical evidence regarding the unique characteristics of public organizations and employees with contemporary psychological theories of Work Motivation in order to develop a revised public-sector model of Work Motivation. The resulting model will provide a theoretical frameWork for future public-sector research on Work Motivation that may be able to identify specific leverage points that can increase Work Motivation and, therefore, productivity in the public sector. CURRENT CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWork Although insufficient attention has been given to Work Motivation within the context of the public sector, relevant research does exist. To facilitate an understanding of the existing Work Motivation literature, some attempt must be made to place these studies within a theoretical frameWork. One such frameWork is 561/J-PART, October 2001 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.181 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:54:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Public-Sector Work Motivation: Literature Review Exhibit 1 Public-Sector Model of Work Motivation
Tao Sun - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Work stress Work Motivation and their effects on job satisfaction in community health Workers a cross sectional survey in china
BMJ Open, 2014Co-Authors: Hao Zhou, Lihua Fan, Xinyan Liu, Zhong Zhang, Tao SunAbstract:Objective It is well documented that both Work stress and Work Motivation are key determinants of job satisfaction. The aim of this study was to examine levels of Work stress and Motivation and their contribution to job satisfaction among community health Workers in Heilongjiang Province, China. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Heilongjiang Province, China. Participants The participants were 930 community health Workers from six cities in Heilongjiang Province. Primary and secondary outcome measures Multistage sampling procedures were used to measure socioeconomic and demographic status, Work stress, Work Motivation and job satisfaction. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess key determinants of job satisfaction. Results There were significant differences in some subscales of Work stress and Work Motivation by some of the socioeconomic characteristics. Levels of overall stress perception and scores on all five Work stress subscales were higher in dissatisfied Workers relative to satisfied Workers. However, levels of overall Motivation perception and scores on the career development, responsibility and recognition Motivation subscales were higher in satisfied respondents relative to dissatisfied respondents. The main determinants of job satisfaction were occupation; age; title; income; the career development, and wages and benefits subscales of Work stress; and the recognition, responsibility and financial subscales of Work Motivation. Conclusions The findings indicated considerable room for improvement in job satisfaction among community health Workers in Heilongjiang Province in China. Healthcare managers and policymakers should take both Work stress and Motivation into consideration, as two subscales of Work stress and one subscale of Work Motivation negatively influenced job satisfaction and two subscales of Work Motivation positively influenced job satisfaction.
Edward L Deci - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Basic psychological needs and Work Motivation: A longitudinal test of directionality
Motivation and Emotion, 2018Co-Authors: Anja H. Olafsen, Edward L Deci, Hallgeir HalvariAbstract:Most Work-related studies of self-determination theory (SDT) have focused either on satisfaction of basic psychological needs or on types of Work Motivation when studying Motivational processes at Work. The few studies that have considered both mechanisms have usually assumed that satisfaction or frustration of basic psychological needs is a prerequisite of different types of Work Motivation. Nevertheless, the directionality of this relation has not been explicitly tested in previous studies of the Workplace. The current study explored the relations among managerial need support, basic psychological need satisfaction at Work, and Work Motivation. It tested competing sets of hypotheses regarding the directionality of these three core constructs within SDT’s model of Work Motivation. A longitudinal analysis suggested that managerial need support was positively directly related to basic psychological need satisfaction but not directly related to Work Motivation. Further, results indicated that basic psychological need satisfaction was related to Work Motivation over time and not the other way around. In addition, it was found an indirect relation between in managerial need support and in Work Motivation through in basic psychological need satisfaction. These findings have important implications for future SDT research testing process models in the Workplace.
-
show them the money the role of pay managerial need support and justice in a self determination theory model of intrinsic Work Motivation
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2015Co-Authors: Anja H. Olafsen, Jacques Forest, Hallgeir Halvari, Edward L DeciAbstract:The link between money and Motivation has been a debated topic for decades, especially in Work organizations. However, field studies investigating the amount of pay in relation to employee Motivation is lacking and there have been calls for empirical studies addressing compensation systems and Motivation in the Work domain. The purpose of this study was to examine outcomes associated with the amount of pay, and perceived distributive and procedural justice regarding pay in relation to those for perceived managerial need support. Participants were 166 bank employees who also reported on their basic psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic Work Motivation. SEM-analyses tested a self-determination theory (SDT) model, with satisfaction of the competence and autonomy needs as an intervening variable. The primary findings were that amount of pay and employees' perceived distributive justice regarding their pay were unrelated to employees' need satisfaction and intrinsic Work Motivation, but procedural justice regarding pay did affect these variables. However, managerial need support was the most important factor for promoting need satisfaction and intrinsic Work Motivation both directly, indirectly, and as a moderator in the model. Hence, the results of the present organizational field study support earlier laboratory experiments within the SDT frameWork showing that monetary rewards did not enhance intrinsic Motivation. This seems to have profound implications for organizations concerned about motivating their employees.
-
self determination theory and Work Motivation
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005Co-Authors: Marylene Gagne, Edward L DeciAbstract:Cognitive evaluation theory, which explains the effects of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic Motivation, received some initial attention in the organizational literature. However, the simple dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic Motivation made the theory difficult to apply to Work settings. Differentiating extrinsic Motivation into types that differ in their degree of autonomy led to self-determination theory, which has received widespread attention in the education, health care, and sport domains. This article describes self-determination theory as a theory of Work Motivation and shows its relevance to theories of organizational behavior. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Herman Van Den Broeck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an analysis of differences in Work Motivation between public and private sector organizations
Public Administration Review, 2007Co-Authors: Marc Buelens, Herman Van Den BroeckAbstract:This study contributes to our understanding of the differences in Work Motivation between the public and private sectors. Data from a survey of 3,314 private sector and 409 public sector employees in Belgium strongly confirm previous research showing that public sector employees are less extrinsically motivated. Differences in hierarchical level are more important determinants of Work Motivation than sectoral differences. In addition, most observed differences can be wholly or partially explained by differences in job content, not by the sector itself. Evidence is presented to show that Motivational differences can be explained by a positive choice of Work–life balance.
Christopher Orpen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement on managerial job satisfaction and Work Motivation
The Journal of Psychology, 1997Co-Authors: Christopher OrpenAbstract:Abstract The hypothesis that job involvement moderates the relationship between the quality of communication and employee job satisfaction and Work Motivation was examined among a sample of 135 managers from 21 different firms (4 to 7 managers from each firm) in a variety of industries. The quality of communication for each manager was measured on a scale of Organizational Communication Effectiveness (Frone & Major, 1988); the average scores of other managers (never less than 3) from the same firm were used to remove response–response bias from the communication-outcome correlations. In a hierarchical regression analysis, the involvement–communication interaction added significantly to the explained variance in both satisfaction and Motivation. Managers who were more involved were more affected by the quality of communication.
-
the effects of formal mentoring on employee Work Motivation organizational commitment and job performance
The Learning Organization, 1997Co-Authors: Christopher OrpenAbstract:Examines the effects of a two‐year formal mentoring programme in a medium‐sized manufacturing company on the Work Motivation, organizational commitment and job performance of mentees. Single measures were obtained, for each mentor‐mentee pair, at the completion of the programme, from the 39 mentors and 39 mentees who remained. These measures included the pairs’ interaction opportunities; and the closeness of their relationship. At the same time, measures were obtained from mentees of their Work Motivation and organizational commitment. The performance of each mentee was given by ratings from their superiors. Significant relations were found between interaction opportunities and both Motivation and commitment, and between relationship closeness and both these attitudes. Finds that the relations between the two mentoring variables and performance were both non‐significant. The results suggest that formal mentoring can improve employee attitudes without necessarily raising their performance, at least in the short term.
