Motivation

Describe, comp atomic number 18 and contrast one process and one marrow scheme of indigence. Evaluate how becharm they ar for organisations directly. need is the desire or leaveingness of someone to do something. Craig C. Pinder (1998) square offd work indigence as a set of internal and external forces that initiate work associate demeanour and determine its form, direction, intensity and du ration. indigence plays an all-important(a) role in a argumentation environment, as employee motive is believed to im prove work performance.Discussed in this render are two oddballs of pauperization theories Content possible spotion which tries to identify dowryicularised regards that motivate commonwealth and Process theories which is ground on exploitation models relating necessitate, motives and behaviour. In this es study, I aim to asses content and process theories accordingly Abraham Mas outsets pecking order of Needs possible action and Stacey Adams Equity po ssibleness comparing these theories and spotlight any assumptions, strengths, weakness, positives and negatives individually and comparatively to be able to come to a critical conclusion as to whether these theories are suitable for organisations at present.My content supposition is based on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs opening, published in 1943 by Abraham Maslow. His hypothesis was that valet de chambre take arrange themselves in hierarchies as quoted in his publication of A Theory of Human motive in 1943 (p. 370). In hierarchical order physiological of necessity which entails provender, water, shelter and warmth. condom makes refers to security, stability and freedom from fear. Social needs include the need for affection and friendships. Esteem needs refers to ego needs, recognition and respect.Finally, Self-actualisation, realisation of ones skilful potential becoming everything that one is capable of becoming. When one set of needs is satisfied, it ceases to be a mo tivating factor. Thereafter the succeeding(prenominal) set of needs in the pecking order order takes places, (Maslow, 1943) this continually occurs until the assumption of self-actualisation is satisfied, as Maslow stated, a satisfied need is no longer a motivator. Equity Theory, a process theory first proposed by Stacey Adams in 1963 ocuses on bulks feelings on how fairly they puzzle been treated in simile with the treatment received by otherwises. It is based on exchange theory (Homans 1961) downstairsgoing an exchange process, which involve stimulations and outcomes. In Social Behaviour its Elementary Forms by George C. Homans he created the rule of Distri justive Justice a man in exchange relation with a nonher allow for expect that the reward of to each one man be proportional to his costs the greater the investments, the greater the profit, (Homans 1961 p. 75).Numerous business environments present contrast, however, the acknowledgement of inequality will motivate an individual to decline or eradicate the inequality. These two theories embellish a birth in terms of how they motivate individuals by fulfilling a need that affects them two mentally and physically for ex vitamin Ale, Maslows theory refers you will be make to the next amplyer train of needs if the previous aim is fulfilled satisfactorily, if this is non met, work performance will deteriorate and affect individuals mentally or physically as they can non advance to the next train.As well as, Adams Equity Theory Work on Walster, Berscheid and Walster, 1973 was covered by Kingsley, Catherine, Park, Hee Sun and Lee, Hye Eun (2007) where they suggested mathematically, equity theory predicts that people will be uncomfortable in races in which their accept ratio of inputs to outcomes is not equivalent to the other partys ratio of inputs to outcomes, in other words, this discomfort can lead to further earnestness to reach the next goal or increase input to lastly increase out comes to reach satisfaction and eliminate the discomfort.Furtherto a greater extremity, research has proved that both theories of Maslow and Adams can endpoint in consequential behaviour if their needs are unable to be satisfied. For instance, Maslows theory states at that place are five stages of the hierarchy, considering psychological needs are most important, in having a healthy work relationship, if this is not fulfilled, individuals might resort to criminal activities to pander that need in order to survive.Similarly, evidence from research graduate(prenominal)light that in that location are negative elans in which workers can redress inequality As seen in organisational behaviour and Work, Wilson, Fiona M, (2010), it highlights the ways in which individuals act negatively towards inequity underpayment leads to trim downed calling performance (Prichard et al. , 1972 Lord and Hohenfeld, 1979). some other form of reaction to underpayment is disruptive, deviant behavio ur, such(prenominal) as vandalism and larceny (Hollinger and Clark, 1983). Theft might be seen as a means to fill up feelings of underpayment inequity.The Hawthrone Studies conducted by Elton Mayo amongst 1924 and 1932, showed that employees are not just motivated by the money, outcomes, but their attitudes, needs as well. Initiating the human relations set out to management and the needs and want of employees was the primary concentre of managers. In mindless, both Maslow and Adams theories can be considered Equity theories of motivation. In some way, Equity Theory may seem more relatable to organisations today globally, as equity is part of the human rights laws, as compared to Maslows theory.Maslows theory is unmasked as ethnocentric by Geert Hofstede (1984), he stated, there are cultural limitations in the orbit of this theory conducted by Haire, Ghiselli and Porter (1966) where Haire et al, concluded the only state of matterality group that enjoin their need importanc e almost, and their need satisfaction exactly, in the Maslow order was the U. S. managers. The other nationalities showed more or slight deviant patterns. Hoftsede argues that Maslows theory is based on an individualistic confederacy quest self-actualisation as their most important goal/need.However, in collectivist societies such as China seeking harmony or family support or job satisfaction, which are not represented in the hierarchy of needs, are seen as their necessary goals. Nevis (1983) topic emphasises that Maslows Hierarchy is not relatable to Chinese purification. His main observations were that there was a difference in the cultures in terms of belong Individualistic society as opposed to collectivist societies seeks belonging, whereas collectivist societies basic needs only emerge after they halt satisfied their need to belong.This indicates Maslows theory is not appropriate to all cultures, however, there is a predominant relationship illustrating the need for eq uity in business environments. Empirical support for Maslows Theory is lacking (Murcell 1976), Maslow himself admitted in 1962 my motivation theory was published 20 years ago nobody repeated it, screen outed it, or rattling analysed or criticized it. Lowry (1982 63). Another criticism discussed (McLeod 2007) concerning the assumption that the lower needs mustiness be satisfied before a person can procure their full potential and self-actualise.McLeod (2007) argues that this is not always the case, and therefore the theory is falsified. many creative people such as authors, musicians and artists stimulate exhibited self-actualisation without meeting the lower needs. Van Gogh, who was poor and considered by many psychotic Rembrandt, who had no food or majority of the basic psychological needs Toulouse Lautrec, whose body anguish him were all engaged in some form of self actualisation. by chance the development of uniqueness and creativity in meeting some of the levels, in som eway compensates for the lack of having the basics.It is sensible however to state that some people aim for self actualisation even when their physiological needs or lower needs are not fully met. Moreover, Maslow defined self-actualisers as people of great accomplishment such as dignitaries and presidents. This statement makes it knotty to understand the concept of self-actualisation. In fact, Muchinsky (1993) states that Maslows theory is more philosophic than empirical, which means it is complicated to experiment.The only way to do so is to say that all people are at different stages of development, and all of them are self actualisers in some form, Poston (2009). Another weakness is the arrangement of hierarchy Bellot & Tutor (1990) argue that the arrangement does not apply to organisations today and modern society. They conclude that self actualisation is a proponent need for self-esteem implying self-esteem would follow only after self- actualisation, which is clearly n ot illustrated in the Maslows theory model.Equity Theory can be assessed into four-spot basic promptings according to Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987). One of the propositions being Individuals develop their perception of law by calculating a ratio of their inputs and outcomes and then comparing this to the ratios of others (Huseman, et al. , 1987). noticeably some inputs and outcomes are intangible, in the sense that they cannot be measured or quantified such as Inputs experience, knowledge, ability, qualifications and ambition of the individual (Cory, 2006) and outcomes recognition or job security.This makes coming to a suitable conclusion for an individuals input and outcomes ratios more difficult as these concepts are intangible, meaning it is difficult to define or understand, as it is vague and abstract a concept. Another proposition suggests that as the difference in inequity increase, the tension and distress felt up by individuals will increase (Huseman, et al. , 198 7). However, not every person will experience equity or inequity in the same way because people pay back varying tolerance levels for sensitivity to perceived statuss of inequity.Huseman et al. , suggest that there are three types of individuals on an Equity Sensitivity Spectrum likeable (more tolerant of under-reward), Equity Sennsitives (follow the norm of equity theory) and entitle (prefer over-reward situations)(Huseman, et al. , 1987). In my anterior statements about Wilson, Fiona M, (2010) work that highlights the ways in which individuals act negatively towards inequity may be narrowed down using this spectrum, unlike the generic idea that underpayment leads to lowered job performance (Prichard et al. 1972 Lord and Hohenfeld, 1979). Using the spectrum, Benevolents, will experience distress and guilt if they are in a situation of over-reward. Equity Sensitives, will experience distress when faced with either type of inequity and Entitleds, experience distress when in an eq uitable or under reward situation. This social system is useful for addressing and understanding equity theory and individuals behaviour. However, costless to say this is just a broad spectrum. The Equity Sensitivity Spectrum does not ac take for all individual differences in preferences and behaviour.Individuals might show different equity sensitivities in different contexts (Huseman, et al. , 1987). For instance an individual might be Equity Sensitive in their relationships, favouring an equitable balance. Conversely, they might be an Entitled in business environments and are open to the idea of over-reward. Equity theory in a business environment is said to be less damaging if employees are given a voice, respect and feeling of belonging in a workplace. People feel affirmed if the procedures that are follow treat hem with respect and dignity, making it easier to accept outcomes they do not like, Deutsch, 2000, p. 45). Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that employees that are treated with respect are more apt(predicate) to tolerate unfair pay. The perception of inequity is more likely to be tolerated if employees feel comfortable, belong and are respected by their employer. This further prevents detrimental behaviour an employee is likely to illustrate, if uncompensated for the inequity at work such as amounter-productivity work.These intangible concepts such as respect help go along or increase motivation and prevent problems that arise from under-reward. Cultural differences puzzle out the equity theory (Fadil, Williams, Limpaphayom, and Smatt, 2005). question shown on Eastern culture illustrate that, equality as opposed to equity was preferred (Leung and Bond, 1982, 1984 Leung and Park, 1986 Mahler, Greenberg and Hayashi, 1981 as cited in Fadil et al. , 2005). Eastern cultural shows that rewards will be given out evenly to all those involved in the groups performance disregarding of individual inputs or in the flesh(predicate)ised efforts (F adil, et al. 2005). This is probably as a result of primary sector being the most occupied sector in these cultures. Equality as opposed to Equity is a good political orientation that will benefit the equity theory portentously. The business climate today allows Maslow and Adams theory to be applied, although to a limiting degree. Undoubtedly, both theories have shown weakness, strengths and assumptions, which I have explored widely. Today, Maslows model is relatable because people do seek to procure psychological, safety, social and esteem needs, and to discover the realm of self-actualisation.However, as discussed, Maslows theory is a very individualistic model that does not relate globally, in collectivist societies. Thus, proving that Maslows theory may not be appropriate to business environments globally, which practice collectivism such as China. Alternatively, Adams theory is more fitting for business environments globally in the present and certainly in the future as equi ty is seen as a necessity of human rights. Finally, one of the difficulties in motivating workers is that they, all are ifferent and react otherwise to the same kind of change or action. (Haleopota, 2005) once this concept is understood, it is overmuch easier to regard these theories individually, monitoring the effects on an individual over short and prolonged periods of time. These theories discussed are outdated and difficult to empirically test, even though they have been published for years now. Businesses evolve over the years and structures prove as time goes along. Needless to say, some aspects of these theories are relatable today but are quickly diminishing.It is essential to remember the concept of motivation is clean abstract, different strategies produce different results at different times, and there is no single strategy that can produce guaranteed favourable results all the time. (Halepota, 2005). Bibliography controversy of references Bellott, F. K. , & Tuto r, F. D. (1990). A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom of Herzberg and Maslow Theories, Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA Berscheid, E. , Walster, G. , & Hatfield Walster, E. 1978, Equity Theory & Research, Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Brain, C 2002, pass on Psychology Applications, Issues & Perspectives, Nelson Thrones, Cheltenham. p 131-132. Cory, C. , 2006, Equity theory and employee motivation, Buzzle, retrieved from http//www. buzzle. com/editorials/6-24-2006-100325 Deutsch, M. , 2000, Justice and conflict, In M. Deutsch and P. T Coleman (Eds), the Handbook of conflict resolution theory and practice, San Francisco Jossey- Bass Inc. Publishers. Eisenhardt, K. M. , The academy of Management check over, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan. , 1989), pp. 57-74Fadil, P. A. , Williams, R. J. , Limpaphayom, W. , & Smatt, C. , 2005, Equity and Equality? A Conceptual Examination of the Influence of Individualism/ Collectivism on the cross-cultural Application of Equity Theory, Cross Cultural Management, 12 (4), 17-36 Geare, A 1977, betroth Payment Systems, Methuen, New Zealand. P 80 Greenberg, J. , 1988, Equity and Workplace position a Field Experiment, Journal of use Psychology, 4, 606-613 Greenberg, J. , 1990, Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment Inequity The Hidden Cost of pay cuts, Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 561-563Halepota, H. A. 2005 A Motivational Theories and Their Application in Construction, Cost Engineering Vol. 47/No. 3 March, 2005, p. 14. Hallez, T. , Ball, B. , 2010, Stacey Adams Equity Theory, Your Coach, Accessed 12th November 2012, consultation from http//http//www. yourcoach. be/en/employee-motivation-theories/stacey-adams-equity-theory. php Hofstede, G. , 1984, The Cultural relativity of the Quality of Life Concept, Academy of Management Review Vol. 9 smother. 3 p. 389-39 Hollinger, R. C. , & Clark, J. P. 1983, Deterrence in the workplace perceive C ertainty, Perceived Severity, and Employee Theft. Social Forces, 5, 561-568 Huseman, R. C. , Hatfield, J. D. , and Miles, E. W. , Lawler, E. 1968, Equity theory as a prognosticator of productivity and work quality, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 70, pp. 598-610 Maslow, A 1970, Motivation and individualizedity, third ed. , Harper amp Row, New York. Chapter 2 p. 15-31. Huseman, R. C. , Hatfield, J. D. , Miles, E. W. , 1987, The Academy of Management Review, Vol 12(2), p. 222-234 Maslow, Abraham H. , Lowry, Richard J. 1940-, Maslow, Bertha G, Freedman, Jonathan L. , and transnational Study Project The journals of Abraham Maslow. Lewis Pub. Co, Lexington, Mass, 1982. McLeod, S 2007, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, Simple Psychology, Accessed 11th November 2012, Source from http//http//www. simplypsychology. org/maslow. html Muchinsky, P. M. , 1993, Psychology applied to work An introduction to industrial and ecesisal psychology, 4th edition, Brooks/Cole (Pacific Grove, Calif. ), p. 584 O leson, M. , Exploring the Relationship amidst Money Attitudes and Maslows Hierarchy of Needs.International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 83-92, January 2004. Pinder, C. C. 1998. Work motivation in organisational behaviour. swiftness Saddle River, NJ Prentice-Hall Poston, B 2009, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, An Exercise in Personal Explorations, Association of Surgical Technologists, p. 347-353 Pritchard, R. , 1969, Equity theory A review and critique, organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 4, issue 2, pp. 176-211 REDMOND, B 2009, Equity Theory,The Pennsylvania rural area University, PSYCH 484 Work Attitudes and Job Motivation, pp. -16 Rakowski, N 2011, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Model the contravention of the Chinese and the Western Pyramid on the Example of Purchasing high-flown Products, GRIN Verlag. Shapiro, D. , Steers, R. M. , amp Mowday, R 2004, INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL TOPIC assembly THE FUTURE OF WORK MOTIVATION THEORY, The Academy of M anagement Review, vol. 29 issue 3, pp. 379-387 The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr. , 1987), pp. 222-234 Trevino, A. Javier (2009) George C. Homans, the human group and primary(a) social behaviour, the encyclopaedia of informal education, p. Www. infed. org/thinkers/george_homans. htm WAHBA, M. , amp BRIDWELL, L. , 1976, Maslow Reconsidered A Review of Research on the Need Hierarchy Theory, ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE, vol. 15, pp. 212-240 Westerman, C. , Park, H-S. , amp lee, H-E. , 2007, A Test of equity theory in multidimensional friendships a comparison of the United States and Korea. Journal of Communication, 57, 576-598 Wilson, Fiona M (2010) Chapter 6 Motivation. organisational behaviour and work a critical introduction, (pp. 123-142) Oxford Oxford University PressMotivationThis paper presents the findings with regards to the motivation levels of Officers in the self-denial Sector under several parameters. The Indian Army serves as the ul timate instrument for maintaining the unity and the integrity of the nation in the face of external threats and internal unrest and disturbances. Teamwork breeds comradeship which, in turn, leads to pride in belonging to a group and fosters esprit De corps. Motivation thrives on a continuing sense of purpose and it is the Job of the wanter to bring this purpose.Skill in the techniques of leaders is the foremost quality in the art of command and contributes very largely to success at all levels of war. The basic structure and motivational ethos of the armed forces in general and the Indian Army in particular, has remained rooted in the colonial context. The entire basis of military motivation has been focuse around the Zeta/ honor and martial traditions of the sub-nationality based Regiment. The pride in the Guam (substantiation) has been the primary basis of the military motivational ideology. The history and achievements of the Guam have used to inspire the older.The Indian Nati onal Army (NINA) of Subtask Chancre Bose provided a readmes model for the Indian context. It had tried to apply the German and Japanese techniques of military motivation to the Indian context with considerable success. The relation between employee motivation level (dependent variable) with the extent of leading behavior, organizational culture, group liven up, in-person durability and effect of pecuniary motivators (independent variables), as reflected through analysis of data by using Crossbar and Chi-square system is presented as follows 6. purpose of Leadership Behavior * Level of Employee Motivation put off 6. Crossbar of Extent of Leadership Behavior * Level of Motivation in Defense Crossbar Level of Employee Motivation Low Medium High Total positive Count 23 11 0 34 % deep down Extent of Leadership Behavior 67. 6% 32. 4% 100. 0% Participative Count 6 64 9 79 7. 6% 81. 0% 11. 4% 100. 0% wager 18 1937 Extent of Leadership Behavior Charismatic 48. 6% 51 100. 0% Tota l bet 2993 28 150 19. 3% 62. 0% 18. 7% 100. 0% control panel 6. 2 Chi square toes of Extent of Leadership Behavior * Level of Motivation Chi- full-blooded Tests pass judgment UDF Assam. Gigs. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 94. abdominal aortic aneurysm 4 . 000 Likelihood ratio 87. 164 4 .OHO Linear-by-Linear Association 65. 070 1 . 000 N of Valid Cases 150 a. O cells (. 0%) have pass judgment search less than 5. The minimum evaluate see is 6. 35. 124 Fig. 6. 1 interpret for Extent of Leadership Behavior * Level of Employee Motivation dining table 6. 1 presents the information related to the extent of leadership behavior and level of motivation of the employees. It is evident that 81% of the employees falling in participative leadership behavior have a strong point level of motivation, whereas in al other leadership behavior categories, around 41% of the employees have medium level of motivation.Autocratic leadership style and behavior has sizeable 68% respondents in low l evel of motivation, whereas the congress percentage of participative and charismatic leadership behavior is much less. Hence, it seems that as the close-control leadership behavior is increasing, the level of employee motivation is decreasing. To test this association between extent of leadership behavior and level of employee motivation, Chi Square test ( evade 6. 2) has been seed, Here, the visionary hypotheses is that there is no relationship between leadership behavior and level of employee motivation.A high Chi Square tax, I. E. 94. 085 confirms this relationship. Asymptotic significance value has been 0. 000, which shows that the relationship is statistically of import at 5% level of significance. Thus, the null hypotheses, stating no relationship between leadership behavior and level of employee motivation stands rejected. Hence, it may be concluded that leadership behavior plays a significant role in employee motivation. As the close control of dervish behavior increases , the level of employee motivation tends to decrease. 6. Organizational Culture * Level of Employee Motivation Table 6. 3 Crossbar of Organizational Culture * Level of Motivation Crossbar Level of Employee Less count 2429 1 54 Conducive % within Organizational Culture 44. 4% 53. 7% 1. 9% 100. 0% Moderately count 5 37 7 49 10. 2% 75. 5% 14. 3% 100. 0% count 0 27 20 47 Organizational Culture exceedingly 57. 4% 42. 6% 100. 0% % within 19. 3% 62. 0% 18. 7% 100. 06 Table 6. 4 Chi Square of Organizational Culture * Level of Motivation Chi-Square Tests Pearson Chi-Square 54. 60AAAikelihood Ratio 60. 297 4 .OOOHOinear-by-Linear Association 47. 912 1 . 000 a. O cells (. 0%) have anticipate c oumountess than 5. The minimum judge count is 8. 77. Fig. 6. 2 represent for Organizational Culture * Level of Employee Motivation Table 6. 3 presents the information related to the organizational culture and level of motivation of the employees. It is evident that 76% of the employees falling in ev enhandedly conducive organization culture have a medium level of motivation, whereas in all other organizational culture categories, around 55% of the employees have medium level of motivation.Less conducive organizational culture has sizeable 44% respondents in low level of motivation, whereas the relative percentage of moderately and passing conducive organization culture is much less. Hence, it seems that with more conducive organization culture, the level of employee motivation is increasing. To test this association between organizational culture and level of employee motivation, Chi Square test (Table 6. 4) has been used, Here, the null hypotheses is that there is no relationship between organizational culture and level of employee motivation.A moderately high Chi Square value, i.I. 54. 060 confirms this relationship. AsAsymptoticignificance value has been 0. 000, which shows that the relationship is statistically significant at 5% level of significance. Thus, the null hypoth eses, stating no relationship between organizational culture and level of employee motivation stands rejected. Hence, it may be concluded that organizational culture plays a significant role in employee motivation. With more conducive organization culture, the level of employee motivation is increasing. 6. 3 Team tonicity * Table 6. CrCrossbarf Team Spirit * Level of Motivation LOW count 24 24 0 48 within -ream inwardness 50. 0% 50. 0% 100. 0% Moderate count 5 48 5 58 % within -ream look 8. 6% 82. 8% 8. 6% 100. 0% count 0 21 2344 Team Spirit High % within -ream spspent7. 7% 52. 3% 100. 0% % within -ream kernel 19. 3% 62. 0% 18. 7% 100. 0% Table 6. 6 Chi Square of Team Spirit * Level of Motivation Chi-Square Tests Pearson Chi-Square 80. 60AAAikelihood Ratio 83. 585 4 . OOOHOinear-by-Linear Association 62. 774 1 . 000 a. O cells (. 0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8. 21 . 129 Fig. 6. Graph for Team Spirit * Level of Employee Motivation Table 6. prPresentshe information related to the team up spirit and level of motivation of the employees. It is evident that 83% of the employees having moderate team spirit have a medium level of motivation, whereas in all other team spirit categories, around 49% of the employees have medium level of motivation. Low team spirit has sizeable 50% respondents in low level of motivation, whereas the relative percentage of high team spirit is much less. Hence, it seems that as the team spirit is increasing, the level of employee motivation is increasing.To test this association between team piprintnd level of employee motivation, Chi Square test (Table 6. 6) has been used, Here, the null hypotheses is that there is no relationship between team spirit and level of employee motivation. A high Chi Square value, i.Ie.E80. 607 confirms this hypotheses, stating no relationship between team spirit and level of employee motivation stands rejected. Hence, it may be concluded that team spirit plays a sig nificant role in employee motivation. As the team spirit of employee increases, the level of motivation tends to increase. 6. 4 Personal yieldiveness * Level of Employee Table 6. CrCrossbarf Personal Effectiveness * Level of Motivation CrCrossbarOW count 1260 18 % within Personal Effectiveness 66. 7% 33. 3% 100. 0% Medium count 14 564 74 18. 9% 75. 7% 5. 4% 100. 0% count 3 31 2458 Personal 5. 2% 53. 4% 41 100. 0% 19. 3% 62. 0% 18. 7% 100. 01 Table 6. 8 Chi Square of Personal Effectiveness * Level of Motivation Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square 58. 544aAAAelihood Ratio 55. 162 4 . OOO OHOear-by-Linear Association 44. 284 1 . 000 a. 2 cells (22. 2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3. 36. Fig. 6. 4 Graph for Personal Effectiveness * Level of Employee Motivation Table . presPresents information related to the personal effectiveness and level of motivation of the employees. It is evident that 76% of the employees having medium personal effectiveness have a med ium level of motivation, whereas in all other personal effectiveness categories, around 43% of the employees have medium level of motivation. Low personal effectiveness has sizeable 67% respondents in low level of motivation, whereas the relative percentage of high personal effectiveness is much less. Hence, it seems that as the personal effectiveness is increasing, the level f employee motivation is increasing moderately.To test this association between personal effectiveness and level of employee motivation, Chi Square test (Table 6. 8) has been used, Here, the null hypotheses is that there is no relationship between personal effectiveness and level of employee motivation. A moderately high Chi Square value, i. eI 5E. 544 confirms this relationship. AsymAsymptoticnificance value has been 0. 000, which shows that the relationship is statistically significant at 5% level of significance. Thus, the null hypotheses, stating no relationship between personal ffeceffectiveness level of e mployee motivation stands rejected.Hence, it may be concluded that personal effectiveness plays a significant role in employee motivation. As the personal effectiveness of employee increases, the level of motivation tends to increase moderately. 6. 5 Effect of pecuniary Motivators * Level of Employee Motivation Table 6. 9 CrosCrossbarEffect of fiscal Motivators * Level of Motivation CrosCrossbar count 10 27 1047 Affected % within Effect of Financial Motivators 21 57. 4% 21 100. 0% count 1966 18 103 Effect of Financial 18. 4% 64. 1% 17. 5% 100. 0% Table 6. 0 Chi Square of Effect of Financial Motivators * Level of Motivation Pearson Chi-Square . 12a AAA 736 Likelihood Ratio . 608 2 . 738 Linear-by-Linear Association . 008 1 . 929 a. O cells (. 0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8. 77. Fig. 6. 5 Graph for Effect of Financial Motivators * Level of Employee Motivation Table 6. 9 presents the information related to the effect of pecuniary motivators and l evel of motivation of the employees. It is evident that 64% of the employees affect by financial motivators have a medium level of motivation, whereas those unaffected by inanuncialivators, i. eI aEouAround of the employees have medium level of motivation.Of the employees affected as well as not affected by financial motivators, sizeable 20% respondents have low level of motivation. Hence, it seems that there is no much variation in motivation level of the employees affected by financial motivators and the ones not affected by financial motivators. To test this association between effect of financial motivators and level of employee motivation, Chi Square test (Table 6. 10) has been used, Here, the null hypotheses is that there is no elatlegislationween financial motivators and level of employee motivation.A low Chi Square value, i. eI 0E 612 confirms this non-relationship. AsymAsymptoticnificance value has been 0. 736, which shows that the relationship is statistically insignifica nt at 5% level of significance. Thus, the null hypotheses, stating no relationship between financial motivators and level of employee motivation stands accepted. Hence, it may be concluded that financial motivators have no significant effect on employee motivation. Hence, there is no relationship between financial motivators and level of employee motivation.