Intrinsic motivation: Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that comes from inside
an individual rather than from any external or outside rewards, such as grades
or money. The motivation comes from the pleasure one gets from the task itself
or from the sense of satisfaction in completing a task. An intrinsically
motivated person will work on a math equation, for example, because it is
enjoyable or an intrinsically motivated person will work on a solution to a
problem because the challenge of finding a solution is provides a sense of
pleasure.
In other cases, a person does
work on the task because there is some reward involved, such as a prize, a
payment, or in the case of students, a grade. Intrinsic motivation is when I am
motivated by internal factors, as opposed to the external drivers of extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic motivation drives me to do things just for the fun or
because I believe it is a right thing to do. Intrinsic motivation is far stronger
a motivator than extrinsic motivation, yet external motivation can easily act
to move intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation is more efficient in the long term because it
means that the person has a genuine interest in doing something he or she likes.
For e.g., a student that wants to study a topic because he/she likes it and he
thinks that is something valuable for his/her life will be much more motivated
and achieve better grades. This is called intrinsic motivation. To create
intrinsic motivation in a person you have to make him engage in the action, you
need to let him know why it will benefit him and how is going to improve his
life however. Intrinsic motivation has to come from the inside out of the
person, is difficult to create in someone else because he needs to have that
real interest - you can't force him.
According to (Ryan and Deci, 2000) Intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of
an
Activity for its inherent
satisfaction rather than for some separable consequences. When intrinsically
motivated, a person is moved to act for the fun or challenge entailed rather
than because of external products, pressures or reward.
Quality of Work Life is a term that had been used to describe the broader job-related
experience an individual has. QWL is viewed as a wide-ranging concept, which
includes adequate and fair
Remuneration, safe and healthy
working conditions and social integration in the work organization that enables
an individual to develop and use all his or her capacities. Most of the
definitions aim at achieving the effective work environment that meets with the
organizational and personal needs and values that promote health, well being,
job satisfaction, job security, competency development and balance between work
and non-work life. The definitions also emphasize the good feeling perceived
from the interaction between the individuals and the work environment.
Many factors determine the
meaning of quality of work life, one of which is work environment. The success
of any organization is highly dependent on how it attracts recruits, motivates,
and retains its employees. Today's organizations need to be more flexible so
that they are equipped to develop their workforce and enjoy their commitment.
Therefore, organizations are required to adopt a strategy to improve the
employees’ ‘quality of work life' to satisfy both the organizational objectives
and employee needs. This consideration of Quality of working Life as the
greater context for various factors in the workplace, such as job satisfaction
and stress, may offer opportunity for more cost-effective interventions in the
workplace. The effective targeting of stress reduction, for example, may
otherwise prove a hopeless task for employers pressured to take action to meet
governmental requirements.
Job satisfaction:
The term Job satisfaction was
brought to limelight by Hoppock (1935). Hoppock described job satisfaction as, “Any combination of
psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances that cause and
person truthfully to say I am satisfied with my job.”
Job satisfaction is basically
refers to a person’s feeling towards their job which acts as a motivation to
work. Job satisfaction is an individual’s feeling regarding his or her work. It
can be influenced by a various factors. Job satisfaction is under the influence
of a series of factors such as: The nature of work, Salary, Advancement
opportunities, Management, Work groups and Work conditions.
Job satisfaction is in regard
to one's feelings or state-of-mind regarding the nature of their work. Job
satisfaction can be influenced by a variety of factors, e.g., the quality of
one's relationship with their supervisor, the quality of the physical
environment in which they work, degree of fulfillment in their work etc.
|
|
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOB SATISFACTION |
|
QUALITY OF WORK LIFE |
MODEL
OF THREE VARIABLES
2.0 REVIEW Of LITERATURE:
Beh Loo See, Che
Rose Raduan , Dris Khairuddin I, Uli Jegak determined the level and relationship between
qualities of work life with career-related variables. The result indicates that
the 3 exogenous variables are significant: career satisfaction, career
achievement and career balance with 63% of the variance in QWL. The respondents
appeared to be satisfied in respect to the level of QWL, career achievement,
career satisfaction, but less so for career balance. These findings contribute
to an understanding of ways by top management in attempts to achieve a career
fit between the needs of the employees and the needs of the organization.
Brazil Kevin, Krueger Paul , Lewis
David, Lohfeld
Lynne, Tjam
Erin (2001) examined whether
extrinsic, intrinsic or “prior” traits best predict satisfaction with quality
of work life in health care. An extrinsic trait includes salaries and other
tangible benefits; intrinsic traits include skill levels, autonomy and
challenge. Prior traits are those of the individuals involved, such as their
gender or employment status. A survey of employees was conducted in seven
different health-care settings, Canada it is found that identifiable traits of
an organization such as pay, benefits and supervisor style play the major role
in determining quality of work life and satisfaction. Anders H., Eskildsen, Kat, Kristensen Jacob
K and Westlund (2004) stated regarding the
differences in intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction among employees
with different characteristics Job satisfaction between the genders has been
analyzed in this study and men and women in the Nordic countries were found to
be equally satisfied with their job. This opposes previous findings where women
were found to be significantly more satisfied than men and also found that
employees with a highly educated are less satisfied and managers are more
satisfied than regular workers and that job satisfaction decreases with company
size. Job satisfaction and intrinsic work motivation were found to be linear in
age and that highly educated employees reported higher levels of intrinsic work
motivation. Daniela A., Evans, Martin G., Ondrack (1987) Quality of Work Life
programs were introduced at five petrochemical plants in the chemical valley
complex in Lambton County, Ontario: three at newly constructed or green field
sites and two at redesigned, existing sites. Comparisons between employees in
Quality of Work Life and traditional sites showed no differences on various
aspects of either perceived job enrichment or job satisfaction but, comparisons
between employees at green field and redesign sites showed several significant
differences. It was concluded that there is greater potential for successful
introduction of Quality of Work Life programs at green field sites than at
redesign sites and that a job-enrichment ceiling for Quality of Work Life
programs may exist in technologically intensive, continuous process production
systems such as at petrochemical plants. Ghada ,El-Kot and Mike, Leat (2008)
investigated the relationships between job satisfaction, interpersonal trust,
intrinsic motivation and job-related tension in this non-Western context and to
found whether there is evidence of similarity in the nature of the
relationships between these variables and those found in Western contexts and
indicated that employees are satisfied, intrinsically motivated, trust their
peers and managers and suffer from relatively low levels of job tension. The
major predictors of job satisfaction are intrinsic motivation, confidence in
the competence of management and the lack of work-related tension. Karatepe, Osman M. and Tekinkus, Mehmet (2006) investigated the effects
of work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on
front-line employees' job performance, job satisfaction, and affective
organizational commitment in Turkish retail banks as its setting. The Result of this study reveals that
work-family conflict increased emotional exhaustion and decreased job
satisfaction. Intrinsic motivation was found to exert a significant negative
impact on emotional exhaustion. Results demonstrate that high levels of
intrinsic motivation resulted in high levels of job satisfaction, job
performance and affective commitment to the organization. The results also
indicate that emotional exhaustion exerted a significant negative effect on job
satisfaction. As hypothesized, high levels of job performance led to increased
job satisfaction. Jordan, Paul C. (1986) finds the relationship between intrinsic employee
motivation and the expectation of a reward based upon performance. The author
states that this study has a better research design due to the fact that it was
conducted in the field and not in a laboratory. The studies also look at the
possible links between satisfaction with pay and the existence of
contingent-rewards. Jonathan H., Westover (2010)The purpose of this paper is to expand Handel's
intrinsic and extrinsic framework for understanding job characteristics and job
satisfaction to the worker experience in socialist and post-socialist Hungary.
The Findings of this paper shows that there are many significant changes in the
intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics and perceived job satisfaction of
Hungarian workers from 1989 to 1997. Federica, Laura and Origo, Pagani (2008) studied is to test various flexible work arrangements
produce different effects on alternative measures of job satisfaction in
Europe. To test the existence of heterogeneity in the impact of flexibility on
job satisfaction, the paper proves whether this relation differ with workers'
characteristics. A positive link was
found between functional flexibility and job satisfaction and either no effect
or a negative impact of quantitative flexibility. The positive impact of
functional flexibility is greater when considering satisfaction for intrinsic
aspects of the job.
3.0 OBJECTIVES OF The Study:
·
To identify the impact of quality of work life on employee’s job
satisfaction.
·
To identify the impact of quality of work life on intrinsic
motivation.
·
To identify the impact of
intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction.
·
To open new vistas for further
research.
4.0
HYPOTHESIS:
·
There is no significant impact of quality of work life on job
satisfaction.
·
There is no significant impact of quality of work life on
intrinsic motivation.
·
There is no significant
impact of intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction.
5.0 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY:
(1)The Sample Design and size:
Population: population was the
employees of the north India.
Sample size: 106 respondents.
Sampling element: Individual employees of the organization.
(2)Tools used for Data Collection: Standardized questionnaire was used for data collection. Data was
collected on a Likert type scale of 1 stood for Very
Satisfied and 5 stood for Very dissatisfied
(3)Statistical analysis and techniques
Regression
6.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS:
The null hypothesis i.e., there
is no significant impact of quality of work life on job satisfaction, has not
been rejected because (p<0.05, 0.236) in this study. In this hypothesis we
have taken two variable, one is independent i.e. Quality of work life and
another is dependent i.e. job satisfaction
We have analyzed the impact of
quality of work life on job satisfaction in North India. The finding of this
research suggests that quality of work life have not a significant impact on
job satisfaction.
The second null hypothesis i.e.
There is no significant impact of quality of work life on intrinsic motivation,
has not been rejected because (p < 0.05, 0.620) in this study. In it we have
taken two variables one is independent i.e. quality of work lifeand
another is dependent i.e. intrinsic motivation.
In this hypothesis, we have
analyzed the impact of quality of work life on intrinsic motivation, the finding
of this research paper suggest that quality of work life have not a significant
impact on intrinsic motivation.
The third null hypothesis i.e.
there is no significant impact of intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction, has
been rejected because (p < 0.05, 0.00) in this study.
In this hypothesis, we have
analyzed the impact of intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction, the finding of
this research paper suggest that intrinsic motivation have a significant impact
job satisfaction.
7.0
CONCLUSION:
The conclusion
of this paper is that intrinsic motivation of an individual affect the job
satisfaction of an employee but quality of work life does not have any impact on job satisfaction
as well as intrinsic motivation.
8.0
REFERENCE:
1. David Lewis, Paul Krueger, Kevin Brazil,
Lynne Lohfeld, Erin Tjam,(2001),
leadership in Health Services, Vol.14 issue 2, p1
2. Eskildsen,
Jacob K., Kristensen, Kat Westlund,
Anders H.(2004), Work motivation and job satisfaction in the Nordic countries,
Vol. 26 Issue 2, p122-136, 15p
3. Jordan, Paul C.1Academy of Management
Journal; Jun86, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p405-412, 8p, 2 Charts, 1 Graph
4. Mike Leat, Ghada El-Kot,(2008),
International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Interpersonal trust at
work, intrinsic motivation, work-related tension and satisfaction in Egypt,
Vol. 2 Number:2,pp:180-194
5. Ondrack,
Daniela A., Evans, Martin G. (1987) Job Enrichment and Job Satisfaction in
Greenfield and Redesign QWL Sites, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p5-22, 18p
6. Origo,
Federica, Pagani, Laura (2008), International Journal of Manpower; Vol. 29
Issue 6, p539-566, 28p
7. Osman M. Karatepe, Mehmet Tekinkus, (2006) "The effects of work-family conflict,
emotional exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line
employees", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 Iss: 3, pp.173 – 193.
8. Raduan Che Rose, LooSee Beh, Jegak Uli
and Khairuddin Idris, 2006:
Quality Of Work Life: Implications Of Career Dimensions, University of Malaya,
Malaysia.
9. Westover, Jonathan H.(2010),International
Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 37 Issue 2, p84-100, 17p, 5 Charts
9.0 APPENDIX:
Regression
Variables Entered/ Removed(b)
|
Model |
Variables Entered |
Variables Removed |
Method |
|
1 |
QWL(a) |
. |
Enter |
a All requested variables
entered.
b Dependent Variable: JS
Model Summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.117(a) |
.014 |
.004 |
2.26351 |
a Predictors: (Constant),
QWL
ANOVA(b)
|
Model |
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 |
Regression |
7.275 |
1 |
7.275 |
1.420 |
.236(a) |
| Residual |
527.716 |
103 |
5.123 |
|
|
|
| Total |
534.990 |
104 |
|
|
|
a Predictors: (Constant),
QWL
b Dependent Variable: JS
Coefficients(a)
|
Model |
|
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
| B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
| 1 |
(Constant) |
7.336 |
1.422 |
|
5.159 |
.000 |
| QWL |
.017 |
.014 |
.117 |
1.192 |
.236 |
|
a Dependent Variable: JS
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(b)
|
Model |
Variables Entered |
Variables Removed |
Method |
|
1 |
QWL(a) |
. |
Enter |
a All requested variables
entered.
b Dependent Variable: IM
Model Summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.049(a) |
.002 |
-.007 |
4.30778 |
a Predictors: (Constant),
QWL
ANOVA(b)
|
Model |
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 |
Regression |
4.593 |
1 |
4.593 |
.247 |
.620(a) |
| Residual |
1911.369 |
103 |
18.557 |
|
|
|
| Total |
1915.962 |
104 |
|
|
|
a Predictors: (Constant),
QWL
b Dependent Variable: IM
Coefficients(a)
|
Model |
|
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
| B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
| 1 |
(Constant) |
16.889 |
2.706 |
|
6.241 |
.000 |
| QWL |
.014 |
.028 |
.049 |
.497 |
.620 |
|
a Dependent Variable: IM
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(b)
|
Model |
Variables Entered |
Variables Removed |
Method |
|
1 |
IM(a) |
. |
Enter |
a All requested variables
entered.
b Dependent Variable: JS
Model Summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.813(a) |
.660 |
.657 |
1.32804 |
a Predictors: (Constant),
IM
ANOVA(b)
|
Model |
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 |
Regression |
353.331 |
1 |
353.331 |
200.337 |
.000(a) |
|
|
Residual |
181.660 |
103 |
1.764 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
534.990 |
104 |
|
|
|
a Predictors: (Constant),
IM
b Dependent Variable: JS
Coefficients(a)
|
Model |
|
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
|
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
|
|
|
1 |
(Constant) |
1.186 |
.568 |
|
2.088 |
.039 |
|
|
IM |
.429 |
.030 |
.813 |
14.154 |
.000 |
a Dependent Variable: JS