Chapter 5: Discussion: 5.1 Research Objective 1

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
5.1 Research objective 1
 To determine the level of motivation among teaching staffs in UDM.

According to the research we have identify that motivation may be also explained as the
process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors in all activities. Guay et
al., (2010) showed how motivation refers to the reasons underlying behavior. Broussard and
garrison (2004) defined motivation as the attribute that moves someone to do or not do
something. According to Vroom (1964), motivation is defined as a process governing choices
made by persons among alternative forms of voluntary activity. According to Elliot and
Covington (2001), motivation is defined as one’s direction to behavior, or what causes a
person to want to repeat a behavior and vice versa. On the other hand, motivation was
looked as a pervasive and important determinant of behavior for students, teachers, and
administrators at all educational levels (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996). According to Griffin
(2013), motivation involves a series of modifying and directing human behaviors into
desired patterns of work.
 To determine the level of job satisfaction among teaching staffs in UDM.

Job satisfaction is affected by a number of elements and some examples can be the
quality of one’s relationship with their supervisors, the working condition of UDM in
which they work and the extent to which they are committed in their jobs. On the
other hand, Individuals form their opinions based on the incentives they acquire
depending on their performance (Roberts, 2005). This theory assumes that if
employees increase their capability to work therefore entailing to a rise in the
production level, they will be rewarded for it (Worrell, 2004).
 To determine whether there is a relationship between teaching staffs’ job satisfaction and
motivation. (H1)
There is a strong relationship link between motivation and job satisfaction. The more motivated a
person is at work the better they are likely to perform and advance. This leads to as higher rate of
satisfaction in the work place.
Both motivation and satisfaction relate to job performance and they can influence it either positively or
negatively; the satisfaction obtained as a result of the participation of the individuals in their tasks is not
only an individual problem but also one of UDM repercussions on its; the influence of motivation and
satisfaction on job performance is essential for managers to pay particular attention of these elements.
On the other hand, some research stated that there also is some confusion noticeable at the topic of
how motivation influences performance. Earlier research conducted by Vroom (1964) resulted in the
conclusion that employee motivation and performance were uncorrelated. However, later research by
Petty et al. (1984) concluded that there indeed is a relationship, by using the 15 researches Vroom
(1964) used and 20 more recent researches. According to Petty et al.(1984) the differentiated results
were possibly due to the fact that in Vroom’s research 40% of the variance of correlations across the
study was due to sampling error and the other 60% to a combination of error of measurement,
restriction in range, other artifacts, or real differences between some of the studies. Petty et al. (1984)
overcome these problems by conducting their research in a more scientific manner.
Relating to the literature review, a momentous model that simplified the purview of the Dispositional
Theory was the Core Self evaluations Model which was suggested by Timothy A. Judge in 1998. Judge
asserted that there are four Core Self-evaluations that resolve one’s propensity towards job satisfaction,
namely self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism. This model asserts that
higher position of self-esteem (the value one establishes on his/her self) and general self-efficacy (the
belief in one’s own capability) prompt to higher work satisfaction. Possessing an internal locus of control
(believing one has control over her/his own life, in contrast to outside forces gaining control) bring to
higher job satisfaction. Lastly, lower levels of neuroticism prompt to higher job satisfaction. Thus data
analysis and findings done give a mean of 1.83 which means that on average, the academic staffs are
either satisfied or dissatisfied from their work motivation at UDM.
According to the literature review, a link between job satisfaction and motivation is also supported
theoretically (Mullins, 2005). Two-factor theory, for example, identifies a direct association between the
two (Herzberg et al., 1957), while in Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964), there is an indirect link between
the two concepts. On the other hand analysis and findings that have been done when using the bivariate
correlation stated that:
Direction: There is a positive relationship between the satisfaction that the academic staffs experience
from taking on challenging tasks and the chance to try their own methods of doing the job.
Magnitude: There is a strong relationship between the satisfaction that the academic staffs experience
from taking on challenging tasks and the chance to try their own methods of doing the job.
Significance: There is a non-significant relationship between the satisfaction that the academic staffs
experience from taking on challenging tasks and the chance to try their own methods of doing the job.
Another perspective in the literature review explains that job satisfaction often depends on how well
targets have been met or expectations surpassed. For instance, positive attitude towards the job is more
likely to occur when employees feel fairly and equitably rewarded than a situation where employees
feel they are being rewarded less for their determined efforts compared to others employees that
hardly bother to even put in effort.
Also employees are likely to reduce this inequity by either augmenting or diminishing their inputs or
outputs compared with the other individuals. Again, this theory has been criticised. Equity theory is
based only with workers who are satisfied with their salary but does not include several facet of work
(Gruneberg, 1979). Vroom (1969) states that it is complex and inappropriate to test, while Mowday
(1987) is uncertain whether employees with higher salaries will be unhappy. Workers’ interpretations
about equity and inequity may not be factual and also disagree immensely as to how responsive they
are to equity ratios and the balance of favouritism (Riggio, 1990).
However, analysis and findings indicate that 30% of changes in chances for advancement on the job are
explained by changes in their pay and the amount of work they do. Also R Square indicates that 9% of
chances for advancement on this job are explained by their pay and the amount of work they do. And
the adjusted R Square says at 3% of chances for advancement are explained by their pay and the
amount of work they do. And finally the Std. Error of the Estimate implies that 75% of chances for
advancement on this job are explained by other variables than their pay and the amount of work they
do. Therefore we can conclude that this is not a good model because the maximum of chances for
advancement on this job are explained by other variables.

Chapter 5: Discussion: 5.1 Research Objective 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5: Discussion: 5.1 Research Objective 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5: Discussion: 5.1 Research Objective 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

5.1 Research objective 1

 To determine the level of motivation among teaching staffs in UDM.

5.2 Research objective 2

 To determine the level of job satisfaction among teaching staffs in UDM.

You might also like