Importance of Intrinsically Motivate Employees

Introduction

Many people tend to presume that the most of import incentive at work is wage. Yet. surveies point to a different factor as the major influence over worker motive. occupation design. How a occupation is designed has a major impact on employee motive. occupation satisfaction. committedness to an organisation. absenteeism. and turnover.

The inquiry of how to decently plan occupations so that employees are more productive and more satisfied has besides received attending from directors and research workers since the beginning of the twentieth century. This chapter therefore discusses background surveies associating to how occupation design tends to impact employee motive and occupation public presentation and so based on the background. the research job. aims of the survey. research inquiries. relevancy of the survey. among others are stated. Motivation is a subject that is extensively researched. Halfway the 20th century the first of import motivational theories arose. viz. Maslow’s hierarchy of demands ( 1943 ) . Herzberg’s two-factor theory ( 1959 ) and Vroom’s anticipation theory ( 1964 ) . Those researches focused on motive in general and employee motive more specifically.

In the past old ages assorted definitions of motive were defined. e. g. Herzberg ( 1959 ) defined employee motive one time as executing a work related action because you want to. It is normally agreed that employee motive can be separated in intrinsic and extrinsic motive ( Staw. 1976 ) . Staw argues that one of the first efforts to do that differentiation was in Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory ( 1959 ) . However. the treatment about intrinsic and extrinsic Motivation is more from latter old ages ( e. g. Amabile. 1993 and Deci & A ; Ryan. 2000 ) . Especially of import is the treatment about how intrinsic and extrinsic motive can lend to Employees’ public presentations ( Ramlall. 2008 ) .

The relationship between employee motive and occupation public presentation has been studied in the yesteryear ( Vroom. 1964 ) . But high correlativities between the two were non established. However. later Research concluded that employee motive and occupation public presentation are so positively correlated ( Petty et al. . 1984 ) . This relationship is studied in this research and the purpose is to supply directors utile information on how employees’ public presentations can be increased by actuating them per se and/or extrinsically.

With such a rapid traveling economic system and tonss of fiscal establishments jumping up. a deficit of qualified workers and plentiful concern chances. the subject of actuating employees in the fiscal industry has become highly of import to the employer. as motive has a great impact on the manner employees perform in the organisation. If employees do non bask their work. it will impact the success of the organisation ends.

Motivation as an internal thrust to fulfill unsated demands. can direct individual’s behaviours to fulfill those demands therefore the employers must understand what employees need and how to accomplish or fulfill those demands. For this to work efficaciously employers should be able to cognize what actuate employees with the context of the function they perform. Different people are motivated by different factors because persons differ in the degree of their demands. Some employees require a more interesting and disputing occupations. some may desire a better status of service.

These yearss money has become less of a incentive. The employers request is more than merely a good rewards but they require flexibleness and benefits to convey their co-workers every bit good as chances for self sweetening. It is now the duty to affect employees in the concern and allow them cognize that the employer appreciates their thoughts and suggestions. When employers know the right thing to make for employees it will assist the fiscal sector to travel on and win and assist pull and retain employees.

Assorted definitions have been given on motive and some are: Motivation internal and external factors that stimulate desire and energy in people to be continually interested and committed to a occupation. function or capable. or to do an attempt to achieve a end. Motivation consequences from the interaction of both witting and unconscious factors such as the strength of desire or demand. inducement or honor value of the end. and outlooks of the single and of his or her equals.

These factors are the grounds one has for acting a certain manner. An illustration is a pupil that spends excess clip analyzing for a trial because he or she wants a better class in the category. Motivation is a psychological characteristic that arouses an being to move towards a coveted end and elicits. controls. and sustains certain purposive behaviours. It can be considered a impulsive force ; a psychological 1 that compels or reinforces an action toward a coveted end.

For illustration. hungriness is a motive that elicits a desire to eat. Motivation is the intent or psychological cause of an action. Motivation has been shown to hold roots in physiological. behavioural. cognitive. and societal countries. Motivation may be rooted in a basic urge to optimise well-being. minimise physical hurting and maximise pleasance. It can besides arise from specific physical demands such as feeding. sleeping or resting. and sex. Motivation is an interior thrust to act or move in a certain mode. “It’s the difference between waking up earlier morning to lb the paving and idling around the house all twenty-four hours. ” These interior conditions such as wants. desires. ends. activate to travel in a peculiar way in behaviour.

Research Questions

• What is motive and how are its different signifiers related?
• What is the importance of employee public presentation and how can it be measured?
• How do the different signifiers of motive influence employee public presentation?
• What are the factors that affect male and female?
• What motivate higher degree of educated forces and what motivate those at the lower degree.
• What motivate the local Bankss and the foreign Bankss?
• What motivate the banking sector and what motivate the nest eggs and loan establishments?

 Methodology

The purpose of this is to lucubrate on the relationship between employee motive and employee public presentation and to supply the fiscal establishments and directors utile information on this subject. The replies to all research inquiries will be based on literature research. Therefore. by carry oning a comprehensive reappraisal of the published work refering the topic ( Sekaran. 2003 ) . The consequences of this thesis may take to empirical research on the relationship between employee motive and public presentation in the fiscal industries.

Structure

The construct motive is explained. After some basic information and definitions two older motivational theories are explained ( Herzberg ( 1959 ) and Maslow’s ( 1943 ) theory ) . After that the differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic motive is made. And at last. the relationship between both and their effects are clarified. The importance of employee public presentation will be addressed and besides mensurating occupation public presentation is described. The relationship between employee motive and public presentation will be described. How the fiscal industries can actuate employees per se and extrinsically. The deductions of both types of motive are clarified and the decision is provided together with a treatment and the managerial deductions.

Employee motive

In the undermentioned chapter the construct motive is explained. It seems that motive can be conceived in many different ways ; e. g. many research workers tried to explicate motive but all proposed different estimates. Many research has been conducted about this topic and many theories were designed which greatly influenced and still act upon organizational behavior. For illustration Herzberg’s theory of motive ( 1959 ) is still used today.

Harmonizing to Staw ( 1976 ) Herzberg was one of the first individuals who distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic motive. And that differentiation could clear up and therefore aid actuating employees. In this chapter some definitions will be mentioned. together with an debut of the theories of Maslow ( 1943 ) and Herzberg ( 1959 ) . But more significantly a separation between intrinsic and extrinsic motive is made. This separation is besides helpful to clear up the relationship between employee motive and public presentation.

The construct motive

The first inquiry that arises is: “why directors need to actuate employees? ” ( Herzberg. 1959 ) . Harmonizing to Smith ( 1994 ) it is because of the endurance of the company. Amiable ( 1993 ) adds to this statement by reasoning that it is of import that directors and organisational leaders learn to understand and cover efficaciously with their employee’s motive ; since motivated employees are necessary to allow the fiscal organisation be successful in the following century.

She besides argues that unmotivated employees are likely to use small attempt in their occupations. avoid the workplace every bit much as possible. go out the organisation and bring forth low quality of work. In the instance that employees are motivated ; they help organisations survive in quickly altering workplaces ( Lindner. 1998 ) . Lindner besides argues that the most complex map of directors is to actuate employees ; because what motivates employees alterations invariably ( Bowen and Radhakrishna. 1991 ) .

In this paragraph the different positions of motive are described. The term motive arose in the early 1880’s ; before that clip the term “will” was used by philosophers every bit good as societal theoreticians when discoursing effortful. directed and motivated human behavior ( Forgas. Williams and Laham. 2005 ) . Harmonizing to them motive used to be considered as: an entity that compelled one to action. Recently. assorted research workers proposed different definitions of motive. Motivation has been defined as: the psychological procedure “motivation becomes the grade to which an person wants and chooses to prosecute in certain specified behaviours” .

It is apparent that troughs need to actuate employees to obtain the desirable consequences for the organisation. And it can be stated that there is consensus about the facts that motive is an single phenomenon. it is described as being knowing. it is multifaceted and that the intent of motivational theories is to foretell behavior. It seems that Herzberg and Maslow were among the first research workers at this subject and their theories are still being used today. Since these theories clarify the construct of motive and they are utile for the separation of motive in intrinsic and extrinsic motive. they are explained in the following paragraph.

Herzberg and Maslow

Herzberg ( 1959 ) developed a good known motive theory. viz. the Two-Factor Theory ; he distinguishes in his theory between incentives and hygiene factors. Important is that factors are either incentives or hygiene factors. but ne’er both. Incentives are intrinsic motivational factors such as ambitious work. acknowledgment and duty. And hygiene factors are extrinsic motivational factors such as position. occupation security and wage ( intrinsic and extrinsic factors are farther described in the following paragraph ) . Motivating factors can. when present. lead to satisfaction and hygiene factors can. when non present. lead to dissatisfaction. but the two factors can non be treated as antonyms from each other. Herzberg defines motive in the workplace as: executing a work related action because you want to.

Incentives ( taking to satisfaction ) Hygiene ( taking to dissatisfaction ) Achievement Company policy Recognition Company policy Supervision Work itself Relationship with foreman Responsibility Work conditions Advancement Salary Growth Relationship with equals Security Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory conditions upon which these basic satisfactions remainder and by certain more rational desires” ( Maslow. 1943 ) .

When the first. physiological. demand is satisfied the following “higher-order need” has to be satisfied. Maslow distinguishes between lower- and higher-order demands ; the lower-order demands are physiological. safety and love and the higher-order demands are the last two. Lower-order demands have to be satisfied in order to prosecute higher-level incentives along the lines of self-fulfilment ( Maslow. 1943 ) . However. the five demands differ in type of motive. e. g. : self-actualization is intrinsic growing of what is already in the being. or more accurately of what is the being itself ( Maslow. 1970 ) . Maslow ( 1943 ) argues that self-actualisation is perfectly non something extrinsic that an being needs for wellness. such as e. g. “a tree demands water” .

Hereby. Maslow ( 1943 ) refers to the lower order demands as being more extrinsic and the higher order demands more intrinsic. Below. in figure 2. 2. a chart of Maslow’s hierarchy of demands is presented. Figure 2. 2 ; Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs B. Keijzers ; Employee motive related to employee public presentation in the administration In fact. Herzberg. Mausner and Snyderman ( 1959 ) redefined Maslow’s ( 1943 ) Hierarchy of demands into their two classs named: hygienes and incentives. This is one of the first efforts to do up the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motive ( Staw. 1976 ) . And they emphasized that satisfaction and dissatisfaction can non be treated as antonyms from each other ( Salancik and Pfeffer. 1977 ) .

It can even be stated. harmonizing to Furnham. Forde and Ferrari 1998 ) that the incentive demands of Herzberg are really similar to the higher-order demands in Maslow’s Theory of Needs. It can be stated that Herzberg’s ( 1959 ) Two-Factor Theory and Maslow’s ( 1943 ) Hierarchy of Needs are two related theories. And it seems that these two theories form the footing for later motivational theories. since they make a really clear differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic motive. Intrinsic and extrinsic motive are explained in the following paragraph.

Intrinsic and extrinsic motive

As described earlier. motive can be separated in intrinsic and extrinsic motive. Amabile ( 1993 ) explains this as follows:• Persons are per se motivated when they seek enjoyment. involvement. satisfaction of wonder. self-expression. or personal challenge in the work.• Persons are extrinsically motivated when they engage in the work in order to obtain some end that is apart from the work itself.

The differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic motive is apparent. nevertheless research workers argue that intrinsic and extrinsic motive besides have an consequence on each other. Deci ( 1972 ) claims that in some instances extrinsic incentives can diminish intrinsic motive. He argues that if money is administered contingently. it decreases intrinsic motive. But this event will non happen if the money is non-contingently distributed. Amabile ( 1993 ) reacts to this treatment by saying that although extrinsic motive can work in resistance to intrinsic motive. it can besides hold a reinforcing consequence: “once the staging of extrinsic piquant nature of the undertaking and encouragement of self-set ends and deadlines ( Story et al. . 2009 ) .

Hackman and Oldham ( 1976 ) even argue that people have single differences in response to the same work ; they differentiate between employees high and low in growing need strength. Peoples high in growing need strength are most likely to be motivated by occupations with high accomplishment assortment. undertaking individuality. undertaking significance. liberty and feedback. And people low in strength are comparatively insensitive for these factors harmonizing to them. This statement is supported by Furnham et Al. ( 1998 ) ; they argue that introverts are more extrinsically motivated and extraverts more per se motivated. However. it non merely seems that individuals are otherwise motivated but intrinsic and extrinsic motive besides have consequence on each other.

The relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motive

The differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic motive is apparent. nevertheless research workers argue that intrinsic and extrinsic motive besides have an consequence on each other. Deci ( 1972 ) claims that in some instances extrinsic incentives can diminish intrinsic motive. He argues that if money is administered contingently. it decreases intrinsic motive. But this event will non happen if the money is non-contingently distributed. Amabile ( 1993 ) reacts to this treatment by saying that although extrinsic motive can work in resistance to intrinsic motive. it can besides hold a reinforcing consequence: “once the staging of extrinsic motive is taken attention of. intrinsic motive can take to high degrees of satisfaction and performance” .

She besides states in her research that both intrinsic and extrinsic values can actuate employees to make their work. nevertheless intrinsic and extrinsic motive can hold really different effects on employees. In decision can be stated that employees can be in trinsically and/or extrinsically motivated. to execute a certain undertaking ( Amabile. 1993 ) . And that extrinsic and intrinsic motive can reenforce each other. but in some instances extrinsic incentives can besides diminish intrinsic motive ( Deci. 1972 ) . Furthermore. research workers argue that non all people are every bit motivated ; some employees are more per se and others more extrinsically motivated ( Furnham et al. . 1998 ) .

Employee public presentation

Performances can be separated into organisational and employee public presentation. Employee public presentation is besides known as occupation public presentation. However. it seems that occupation public presentation is largely subjectively measured in organisations and it will look that there are few alternate options. In this chapter. at first the differentiation between organisational and occupation public presentation is made. After that the construct occupation public presentation is highlighted. together with mensurating it and its deductions.

Performance in organisations

Performance in administrations can be separated in organizational public presentation and occupation public presentation ( Otley. 1999 ) . Harmonizing to Otley. the public presentation of administrations is dependent upon the public presentation of employees ( occupation public presentation ) and other factors such as the environment of the organisation.

The differentiation between organizational and occupation public presentation is apparent ; an organisation that is executing good is one that is successfully achieving its aims. in other words: 1 that is efficaciously implementing an appropriate scheme ( Otley. 1999 ) and occupation public presentation is the individual consequence of an employee’s work ( Hunter. 1986 ) . Since the purpose of this research is to supply a nexus between actuating employees and their public presentation. organizational public presentation prevarications outside the range of this research and merely occupation public presentation is addressed.

Job public presentation

A good employee public presentation is necessary for the administration. since an organization’s success is dependent upon the employee’s creativeness. invention and committedness ( Ramlall. 2008 ) . Good occupation public presentations and productiveness growing are besides of import in stabilising our economic system ; by agencies of improved life criterions. higher rewards. an addition in goods available for ingestion. etc ( Griffin et al. . 1981 ) .

Griffin et Al. besides argue that therefore research of single employee public presentation is of import to society in general. Employee production and employee occupation public presentation seems to be related ; e. g. in the U. S. Performance is in some instances measured as the figure and value of goods produced. However. in general productiveness tends to be associated with production-oriented footings ( e. g. net income and turnover ) and public presentation is linked to efficiency or perception-oriented footings ( e. g. supervisory evaluations and end achievements ) ( Pincus. 1986 ) .

Harmonizing to Hunter and Hunter ( 1984 ) crucial in a high occupation public presentation is the ability of the employee himself. The employee must be able to present good consequences and have a high productiveness. Hunter and Hunter ( 1984 ) besides argue that this is something the administration can cognize at forehand ; they can choose employees with the needed abilities or they can enroll those employees themselves. Of class the latter is more clip consuming. but can obtain better consequences in the terminal ( Hunter. 1986 ) .

However. occupation public presentation is more than the ability of the employee entirely. Herzberg ( 1959 ) and Lindner ( 1998 ) refer to the managerial side of public presentation. Harmonizing to Herzberg ( 1959 ) public presentation is: allow an employee do what I want him to make. This implies that the organisation’s hierarchy and undertaking distribution are besides critical for a good employee public presentation. Lindner ( 1998 ) adds to this statement by reasoning that employee public presentation can be perceived as “obtaining external funds” .

Harmonizing to Vroom ( 1964 ) an employee’s public presentation is based on single factors. viz. : personality. accomplishments. cognition. experience and abilities. Many research workers agree that occupation public presentation is divided in those five factors ( e. g. Hunter & A ; Hunter. 1984 ) . Some research workers even argue that a person’s personality has a more specific function in occupation public presentation ( Barrick & A ; Mount. 1991 ) . However. harmonizing to assorted research workers. it is non what public presentation precisely means. but how it is composed and how it is measured ( Furnham. Forde & A ; Ferrari. 1998 ; Barrick & A ; Mount. 1991 ) . Vroom’s ( 1964 ) . Hunter & A ; Hunter’s ( 1984 ) . Hunter’s ( 1986 ) . etc. consequences are apparent. Namely. Job public presentation can be divided in personality. accomplishments. cognition. experience and abilities. Some research workers even argue that personality has a more specific function in occupation public presentation. However. harmonizing to Bishop ( 1989 ) and others. occupation public presentation contains a job ; viz. the measuring of public presentation.

Measuring occupation public presentation

Harmonizing to Kostiuk and Follmann ( 1989 ) in most administrations public presentation is measured by supervisory evaluations. nevertheless these informations are non really utile since they are extremely subjective. Bishop ( 1989 ) adds to this that in mostoccupations an nonsubjective step of productiveness does non be. Bishop ( 1989 ) besides states that the consistence of worker public presentation is greatest when conditions of work are stable. but in pattern work conditions ne’er are stable. This makes it even harder to mensurate public presentations objectively.

Harmonizing to Perry and Porter ( 1982 ) . the public presentation of many employees likely will be measured despite the deficiency of handiness of by and large accepted standards. Perry and Porter ( 1982 ) and Bishop ( 1989 ) both argue the job of nonsubjective measurement. nevertheless harmonizing to Bishop ( 1989 ) the job even increases because most employers believe they can rate the productiveness of their employees. and that it is done in an inefficient mode.

However. Bishop ( 1989 ) provinces. it is non impossible. but merely dearly-won to obtain nonsubjective information about a worker’s attempt and productiveness. It is stated before that some research workers argue that a person’s personality plays a more specific function in occupation public presentation ( Barrick & A ; Mount. 1991 ) . However. the consequence personal features and instruction have onperformance is hard to construe. since those estimations are imprecise and the theoretical accounts who claimed that can construe them are rejected as invalid ( Kostiuk & A ; Follmann. 1989 ) .

However. Kostiuk and Follmann do reason that personality differences seem to be of import in the relationship with public presentation. It can be stated that occupation public presentation contains a job ; the measuring of it. Job public presentations are normally measured by supervisory evaluations and those evaluations are non perceived as aim. However. it seems that there are alternate options to mensurate occupation public presentation ; these are references in the following paragraph. Options for mensurating occupation public presentation objectively Breaugh ( 1981 ) provinces in his research that there are four different public presentation dimensions on which employees are measured. named: quality. measure. dependableness and occupation cognition.

This theory combined with Vroom’s ( 1964 ) theory consequences in the work of Hunter ( 1986 ) . He designed the path in which most employers can rate their employee’s productiveness. His theory However. despite the higher objectiveness in the theory of Hunter ( 1986 ) this type of mensurating occupation public presentation is still based on supervisor evaluations. And supervisory evaluations are normally rejected as being nonsubjective ( Bishop. 1989 ) . Griffin et Al. ( 1981 ) concluded in their literature reappraisal that there are few true aim options to mensurate occupation public presentation ; one option is used in the research of Umstot. Bell. & A ; Mitchell. in 1976.

Namely ; take occupation public presentation as “the mean figure of units produced per hr for one twenty-four hours ; adjusted for set-up and called productivity” . Griffin et Al. ( 1981 ) argue that there are some other options to mensurate occupation public presentation employee motive related to employee public presentation in the administration objectively. but they have more to make with productiveness ; e. g. occupation public presentation taken as “number of units produced divided by entire clip worked ( i. e. . points per minute ) ” .

It seems that public presentation in administrations is normally measured subjectively. but there exist few options for nonsubjective ways. However. the range of this thesis is non on planing an nonsubjective measuring for occupation public presentation. Therefore. in this thesis. the measuring of occupation public presentation is taken as an entity.

Employee motive and public presentation

It is already argued that directors need to actuate employees to execute good in the house. since the organisation’s success is dependent upon them ( Ramlall. 2008 ) . However. it is merely subsequently research that succeeded in set uping a positive correlativity between employee motive and occupation public presentation. In this chapter. at first the relationship between employee motive and public presentation will be explained. After that. it will be described how employees can be per se and/or extrinsically motivated to execute good.

It will look that there are several options for intrinsic motive and extrinsic motive. but extrinsic factors entirely will non take to an addition in employee motive. The relationship between employee motive and occupation public presentation. The point of view that motive causes public presentation comes from human dealingss theory ( Filley et al. . 1976 ) .

The relationship between employee motive and occupation public presentation has been studied for a long period. However. earlier research could non win in set uping a direct relationship between the two ( Vroom. 1964 ) . Yet it seems that that the factors do influence each other. Petty et Al. ( 1984 ) reviewed the 15 surveies Vroom ( 1964 ) used in his research and added another 20 more recent surveies ; they concluded that employee motive and public presentation are so related.

The consequences of their research indicate that the relationship between single. overall occupation satisfaction and single occupation public presentation is more consistent than reported in old researches ( e. g. Vroom. 1964 ) . And Hackman and Oldham ( 1976 ) argue that when employee satisfaction is added. a round relationship is formed with public presentation. satisfaction and motive. The term satisfaction is besides used by Herzberg ( 1959 ) ; he argues that when intrinsic factors ( incentives ) are present at the occupation. satisfaction is likely to happen every bit good as an addition in employee motive.

Amabile ( 1993 ) states that work public presentations are dependent upon the individual’s degree of motive ; the individual’s degree of motive can be per se and/or extrinsically based. It is besides argued that certain occupation features are necessary in set uping the relationship between employee motive and public presentation ( e. g. Brass. 1981 ; Hackman & A ; Oldham. 1976 ; etc. ) .

Brass ( 1981 ) argues that when certain occupation features are present in an administration. employees are better motivated and an addition in public presentation is noticeable. Job features refer to specific properties or dimensions that can be used to depict different undertakings ( Griffin et al. . 1981 ) . Hackman and Oldham ( 1976 ) defined five occupation features. which are based on the Two-Factor Theory from Herzberg ( 1959 ) . Those features are: skill assortment. undertaking individuality. B. Keijzers ; Employee motive related to employee public presentation in the administration undertaking significance. liberty and feedback. demo high work motive. satisfaction and public presentation ( Brass. 1981 ) .

Decision

At first it can be concluded that it is so possible to actuate employees to execute good for an administration and that is a critical undertaking for troughs. It seems that there exists a self-reinforcing handbill relationship between the public presentation. satisfaction and motive of an employee ; an employee achieves a high public presentation. therefore internal satisfaction arises and the employee is motivated to execute good in the hereafter. It is stated that a high public presentation can be reached when the administration provides certain occupation features.

Second. it is stated that employees can be both per se and extrinsically motivated to execute good. Most occupations are even both per se and extrinsically motivated ( Amabile. 1993 ) . It can besides be concluded that intrinsic factors can lend in a greater extent to employee motive than extrinsic factors. Some research workers even argue that an addition in extrinsic factors entirely does non take to an addition in public presentation.

Research proved that to intrinsically motivate employees. the administration needs to hit high on five occupation features: accomplishment assortment. undertaking individuality. undertaking significance. liberty and feedback. And to extrinsically actuate employees. the administration needs to hit high on salary. committedness to supervisors and equals and occupation security. These occupation features together with the ability of the employee provide the chance for a high public presentation. which is the start of the self-reinforcing circle ( Hackman & A ; Oldham. 1976 ) .

It is of import that directors provide all occupation features. since that will take to the highest employee public presentation. However. it must be argued that this relationship is non infinite ; it could be that the employee does non longer derive satisfaction from his public presentation or that one of the three psychological phases is no longer present. Therefore administrations must do certain that public presentations can be continuously improved. At last. it can be argued that there are legion other ways to increase the public presentation of employees in administrations ( e. g. diverseness. leading. etc. ) . therefore direction should non concentrate on motive entirely. But it can be concluded that peculiarly intrinsic factors can greatly lend in increasing employee productiveness.

Mentions

1. Amabile. T. M. ( 1993 ) . Motivational synergism: toward new conceptualisations of intrinsic and extrinsic motive in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review. 3 ( 3 ) . 185-201.
2. Ansar. J. . Cantor. P. & A ; Sparks. R. W. ( 1997 ) . Efficiency rewards and the regulated house. Journal of RegulatoryEconomicss. 11. 55-66.
3. Barrick. M. R. & A ; Mount. M. K. ( 1991 ) . The large five personality dimensions and occupation public presentation: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 44.
4. Becker. T. E. . Billings. R. S. . Eveleth. D. M. & A ; Gilbert. N. L. ( 1996 ) . Foci and Bases of Employee Commitment: Deductions for Job Performance. The Academy of Management Journal. 39 ( 2 ) . 464-482.
5. Bedeian. A. G. ( 1993 ) . Management ( 3rd ed. ) . New York: Dryden Press
6. Bishop. J. H. ( 1989 ) . The acknowledgment and wages of employee public presentation. Bowen. B. E. . & A ; Radhakrishna. R. B. ( 1991 ) . Job satisfaction of agricultural instruction module: A changeless phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education. 32 ( 2 ) . 16-22.
7. Brass. D. J. ( 1981 ) . Relationships. Job Characteristics. and Worker Satisfaction and Performance. AdministrativeScience Quarterly. 26 ( 3 ) . 331-348.
8. Breaugh. J. A. ( 1981 ) . Relationships between enrolling beginnings and employee public presentation. absenteeism. and work attitudes. Academy of Management Journal. 24 ( 1 ) . 142-147.
9. Buford. J. A. . Jr. . Bedeian. A. G. & A ; Lindner. J. R. ( 1995 ) . Management in Extension( 3rd ed. ) . Columbus. Ohio: Buckeye stateState University Extension.Cassidy. T. & A ; Lynn. R. ( 1989 ) . A multifactorial attack to achievement motive: The development of a comprehensive step. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 62. 301–312.
10. Csikszentmihalyi. M. ( 1997 ) . Finding flow. Psychology Today. 30 ( 4 ) . 46.
11. Deci. E. L. ( 1972 ) . The effects of contingent and noncontingent wagess and controls on intrinsic motive. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. 8. 217-229.
12. Deci. E. L. & A ; Ryan. R. M. ( 2008 ) . Facilitating optimum motive and psychological wellbeing across life’s spheres. Canadian Psychology. 49. 14–23.
13. Jurgensen. C. E. ( 1978 ) . Job penchants ( What makes a occupation good or bad? ) . Journal of Applied Psychology. 63. 267–276.
14. Filley. A. C. . House. R. J. . & A ; Kerr. S. ( 1976 ) . Managerial procedure and organizational behavior. Glenview. Ill. : Scott.Foresman.
15. Forgas. J. P. . Williams. K. D. & A ; Laham. S. M. ( 2005 ) . Social Motivation. Conscious and unconscious procedures. Cambridge University Press.
16. Furnham. A. ( 1994 ) . Personality at work. London: Routledge.
17. Furnham. A. . Forde. L. & A ; Ferrari. K. ( 1998 ) . Personality and work motive. Personality and single differences. 26. 1035-1043.
18. Gray. J. ( 1975 ) . Elementss of a two-process theory of larning. London: Academic Press.
19. Griffin. R. W. . Welsh. A. & A ; Moorhead. G. ( 1981 ) . Perceived Task Characteristics and Employee Performance: A Literature Review. Academy of Management Review. 6 ( 4 ) . 655-664.
20. Hackman. J. R. & A ; Oldham. G. R. ( 1976 ) . Motivating through the design of work. Organizational Behaviour andHuman Performance. 16. 250-279.