Motivation Theories in Turkey Textile

Motivation Theories in Turkey Textile Tactics

Motivation Theories

turkey textile tactics

The News Reports

Area of Study

Organization of Study

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Herzberg

Self-Perception Theory

Goal Setting Theory

Motivation in Factories

Potential for Pursuing Empirical Research

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Discussion of Results in relation to Objectives.

Discussion of those in relation to Survey Results

Discussion of these in relation to the Theory.

Discussion of Interviews

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION. AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Four Components of Empirical Research

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Conditions Affecting Goal Effectiveness

Table 2: Maslow's Hierarchy and Descriptions of Needs

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

"Turkey's textile industry, which began in small shops in 1960,

has rapidly evolved and transformed Turkey into a global competitor"

("Turkey exports 20 bln…" 2010 ¶ 8).

The News Reports

The news report, "Turkey exports 20 bln USD in textile, clothing in 2009" (2010) stresses that during the past two decades, the textile and clothing sector comprises the primary foundation of the Turkish economy. The Turkish textile industry, which began in modest shops in 1960, rapidly developed and transitioned Turkey into a global competitor. Currently, Turkey's textile industry constitutes a significant role in the process of industrialization in the country as well as the economy's market orientation. During 2009, Turkey's textile and clothing exports totaled 20 billion USD. Additional noteworthy points relating to Turkey's clothing and textile industries include the following:

Turkey's textile exports totaled approximately six billion dollars in 2009; potentially making Turkey's exports more than 20 billion dollars.

In February 2010, compared with the corresponding period during 2009, textile exports increased 29% to 477.5 million dollars ("Turkey exports 20 bln…" 2010).

Area of Study

In Turkey, as in numerous developing countries, small and medium sized enterprises (SME's) primarily comprise the textile sector. According to Faith Savasan and Friedrich Schneider (2006) in the working paper, "What determines informal Hiring? Evidence from the Turkish Textile Sector: Approximately 67% of the textile firms in Turkey have relatives among owners. This factor contributes to "informal hiring" practices, which when detected, routinely receive government fines. The greatest determinants relating to informal hiring in this sector include "competition, skill level of employees, high premiums, and penalty rate" (Savasan and Schneider 17). Determinants that motivate Turkish textile firms to hire employees informally also include the facts the sector is comparatively labor intensive while shadow economy activities prove higher.

Rationale for the Study

The rationale for the study naturally evolved from the researcher's previous part-time work in textile factories throughout the past five-year. The adaptation process for countries to comply with the EU criterion, conjoined with the Eurasia considerations contributing to contemporary economic issues stimulated the researcher's interest as to whether Turkish businesses could or rather would use mainstream/classical theories in their workplaces or continue to operate their business ventures the old fashioned way. (Needs confirming/additional)

Significance of the Study

Turkey, a relatively fast growing country, averages approximately 10-15% economic growth per year (***need source) a year with numerous foreign investors heavily existent in various Turkish markets. The study currently proves significant and will likely become more critical in the near future as increased growth in Turkey's textile factories will mandate that the number of factory workers will simultaneously increase. (Needs confirming/additional)

Organization of Study

Studies like the present study, utilizing empirical research methodology, present data/information, divided into the following five chapter divisions.

I. Introduction,

II. Literature Review

III. Methodology

IV. Analysis

V. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations ("What is…" 2006).

Hypothesis

The hypothesis for the study asserts: When the Turkish textile plant utilizes the classical theory of Maslow's Hierarchy to implement practices to help ensure the needs of the employees are met, then the organization will more likely motivate employees to better perform their responsibilities; in turn enhancing the success of the textile plant.

Research Questions

The primary research question for the study queries: How can the utilization of the classical theory of Maslow's Hierarchy by the Turkish textile plant to implement practices to help ensure the needs of the employees are met help the organization become more likely to motivate employees to better perform their responsibilities; in turn enhancing the success of the textile plant?

Sub-research question to support the primary research question and also contribute to determining the validity of the hypothesis include:

1. How does Maslow's Hierarchy of needs theory compare to other motivational theories?

2. What issues/challenges do factories and factory workers routinely experience that can influence production as well as the factory and the worker's success?

3. How may factory leaders motivate employees to better perform their responsibilities?

Conclusion

During the second chapter of the study, the review of literature, the research, in a sense similar to the Turkish textile industry, begin in small steps to rapidly evolve into a worthy contributor of information worthy of global interest.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

"From an organizational perspective, a leader must have an ability to motivate employees and inspire them to become followers.

Motivation, on the other hand, is the process of arousing and sustaining the goal directed behaviour of the people"

(Jagirdar 2010 ¶ 8)

Introduction

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The theory Abraham H. Maslow (1908 -- 1970), psychologist, developed, known as "Maslow's hierarchy of needs," depicts a theory of motivation and personality and explains human behavior relating to requisites essential for a person to survive and grow. Arranged according to their significance for survival as well as their ability to motivate the individual, these requirements or needs, often reflected as a pyramid, reveal the hierarchy of needs "with physical survival needs located at the base of the pyramid and needs for self-actualization located at the top" ("Maslow's Hierarchy…" 2006, Definition Section, ¶ 1). Although food, water, and oxygen, the most basic physical requirements, comprise the lowest level of the need hierarchy, they possess massive motivational power to motivate persons. These needs have to be fulfilled prior the person deems other, higher needs as significant. Formal education and life experiences stimulate the pursuit of those higher level hierarchy needs, which aim less towards physical survival and more toward the individual's psychological well-being and growth.

According to Maslow, numerous other needs, like aesthetic needs which include beauty and order, and also cognitive needs like curiosity and scientific interest exist outside his hierarchy. In addition, Maslow discovered that a range of needs he identified as transcendence needs or B-values extend beyond self-actualization. Transcendence needs, excluded in most Maslow's needs hierarchy formulations typically depict those needs beyond the need for self-actualization. They reflect they person's needs to contribute to human welfare and to also to discover higher meanings in life ("Maslow's Hierarchy…" 2006).

As Maslow allocated for some departures from the strict order of his needs hierarchy, he noted that total satisfaction of a particular need may not be necessary or possible. This indicates that the lower needs had to be reasonably well satisfied for the individual to focus on higher needs. The majority of people, for instance, would reveal a range of need satisfaction levels at various times. In some scenarios, Maslow asserts, in favor of higher needs being fulfilled, a person's lower needs might be ignored like an artist forfeiting comfort and security to pursue his/her artistic goals, or a student delaying his/her search to connect with a romantic partner to earn high grades and gain admission into a prestigious graduate program. These type departures from a strict hierarchy, albeit, Maslow stressed, did not nullify his basic theory ("Maslow's Hierarchy…" 2006).

In the article, "Super models: In a series of articles examining learning models…," Mike Clayton (2008), founder of Thoughtscape, an organizations which coaches, trains and facilitates leaders, explains that in a seminal 1943 paper, Maslow further developed Henry Murray's Theory of Needs into what has become known as Maslowe's Hierarchy. Some criticize Maslow's work due to the weakness inherent in his research base. This criticism evolved as the foundation of Clayton Alderfer's ERG Theory. This theory asserts that existence, relatedness and growth constitute an individual's three basic needs. Nevertheless, Maslow's primary place in motivation theory remains staid and additionally connects with the work of Herzberg.

The report, "Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler: With Predictions of His Future Behavior and Suggestions for Dealing with Him Now and After Germany's Surrender," relates the examination Henry. Murray (1943), then pre-war Director of the Harvard Psychological Clinic, conducted of Hitler's personality. Murray's work "established personality psychology as a behavioral science. Murray explored a theory of personality in which the interplay of 20 psychogenic needs of varying strength produced distinct personality types" (Murray, Introduction, ¶ 2). Murray determined Hitler's personality type, counteractive narcism, included characteristics like compulsive criminality. A tendency to belittle, blame, and bully other individuals; inability to take a joke, desirous for revenge, extreme demands for attention, holding grudges, inability to express gratitude, low tolerance for criticism, persistence in the face of defeat, and intense self-will/self-trust. Hitler, Murray concluded through the language of needs theory he developed, possessed these characteristics and a number of others to an extreme degree, yet did not possess any offsetting qualities to give him a balanced personality

The word, need, a noun, reflects the individual's willingness to respond in a particular way under specific circumstances, according to "Henry Murray's Theory of Needs" (N.d.). A need also frequently serves to answer the question motivational psychologists regularly ask as they explore motives that impel the person people to do what he/she does: "What drives people to do the things they do?" Basic concepts of motive include:

A motive depicts a person's internal state arousing and directing his/her behavior to meet a precise goal and/or objective.

A deficit, a lack of something, contributes to a motive.

Motives vary in amount and type.

Motives evolve from needs: "States of tension within a person, and as need is satisfied, tension is reduced ("Henry Murray's Theory… N.d., Basic Concepts

Section, ¶ 1).

Motives impel the individual to "perceive, think, and act" in particular ways that fulfill his/her need/s (Ibid.).

Henry Murray identified the following "big three motives":

Need for Achievement

Need for Power

Need for Intimacy ("Henry Murray's Theory… N.d., The Big Three Motives

Section).

Herzberg

Ikwukananne I. Udechukwu (2009), PhD, NOVA Southeastern University in Florida, focuses on work attitudes like satisfaction; examining Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory in the article, "Correctional officer turnover: of Maslow's needs hierarchy and Herzberg's motivation theory." Maslow's work identifies human activity as critical for "the application of sophisticated psychology theories and techniques that are today dubbed 'management studies' among other rubrics" (Udechukwu 2009, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Section, ¶ 12). It also proves significant as it recognizes the need to scale, or order human needs. Udechukwu explains:

While Maslow suggested that needs, which drive behaviors associated with work attitudes (e. g., satisfaction), can be assigned to various levels, Herzberg made the distinction that needs that influence work attitudes can be met intrinsically or extrinsically. Thus, applying each theory provides a unique perspective on satisfaction in the form of the level and the type of satisfaction to be measured. (Udechukwu 2009 ¶ 3).

Maslow's needs hierarchy and Herzberg's motivation theory comprise two traditional motivational theories. Udechukwu (2009) considered Maslow's theory deficient in completely explaining dissatisfaction with a job or organization as it merely focuses only need levels; not the type of need. Frederick Herzberg, born in 1923 in Massachusetts, however, addressed the distinction between the types of needs reflected in satisfaction in his motivation-hygiene theory. Herzberg, like Maslow, "advocated the diversion of psychology studies from the insane to the sane, and his work would later influence some work concepts we know today, such as 'job context' and 'job content'"(Udechukwu, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 1). Contrary to Maslow's theory, Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory asserts whether or not a person experiences satisfaction with his job or not depends on a number of causes.

Herzberg argued that motivators establish satisfaction, while hygiene factors determine dissatisfaction. Herzberg "defined motivators as intrinsic to the job, and he defined hygiene factors as extrinsic to the job. He also succinctly created a distinction between satisfaction and dissatisfaction" (Udechukwu 2009, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 2). Factors that produce "job satisfaction" and motivation distinctly differ from the reasons that contribute to "job dissatisfaction."

Depending whether one examines "job satisfaction" or "job dissatisfaction" determines the separate factors needing to be considered. The feelings of "job satisfaction" and "job dissatisfaction," Udechukwu (2009) argues do not diametrically contradict one another. "The opposite of 'job satisfaction' is not 'job dissatisfaction' but rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly, the opposite of 'job dissatisfaction' is not 'job satisfaction,' but no 'job satisfaction'" (Udechukwu, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 2). An organization needs to do more than simply acknowledge that leaders and/or workers have unmet or met needs. It also proves critical to best identify which particular needs build satisfaction and which needs generate dissatisfaction.

Udechukwu (2009) explains that motivators relate to work aspects of work and include, however, may not be limited to the following:

Work, promotion, achievement, responsibility, and recognition. (Udechukwu 2009, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 4)

Hygiene factors, Udechukwu (2009) asserts, reveal the framework in which the individual performs the work and include, however, may not be limited to the following:

Working conditions, interpersonal relations, company polities, salary, and supervision. (Udechukwu 2009, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 4)

In some work environments, the work itself as well as internal and external environments may or may not prove to be hospitable to the individual's needs. As Herzberg's work portrays satisfaction horizontally, it differentiates between kinds of satisfaction. Even when an individual experiences a low level of job satisfaction, according to Herzberg, this does not automatically confirm the employee is dissatisfied with/in his job. Similarly, when a person experiences a low level of dissatisfaction in/with his job, this does not necessarily imply the employee is satisfied with/in his job (Udechukwu 2009).

Maslow's Hierarchy theory, contrary to Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory, classifies satisfaction vertically as it directs analysts to scale each need to be completely met or unmet, absolutely satisfied or not satisfied. Maslow's theory demonstrates that measuring, or scaling needs or satisfaction that result in the behavior proves vital as this contributes to the individual's attitude and ensuring behavior/s. To be as useful as possible and enhance the understanding of a concern in the organization, the study of an individual's satisfaction with/in his job, for example, mandates that the researcher identifies the type of satisfaction as well as the individual's satisfaction level through needs (Udechukwu 2009).

The encyclopedia article, "Freud, Sigmund (1856 -- 1939)" (2006) purports that prior to Freud presenting his new theory of the human drives, he had speculated that Eros, which comprises the individual's entwined instincts for love, sex, propagation, and self-preservation served as primary psychological drive for human life. In his controversial 1920 modification of his drive theory, Freud broadened his presumption "to include a second, primary impulse derived from the human capacities for aggression, destruction, and self-destruction. & #8230;. labeled & #8230;'Thanatos' or 'the death instinct'" ("Freud, Sigmund…," Freud's Career After 1914 Section, ¶ 3). Freud's increasing pessimism relating to World War I carnage, contributed to the development of his death instinct percept, which depicted his reportedly biologized view, which he presumed noted a desire for organic life to return to what Freud judged to be an inorganic state. The majority of 21st Century psychoanalysts rejected Freud's concept of a human death instinct, albeit, many accept his broader emphasis on the role of aggression in human nature.

In the book, Dimensions of Human Behavior: Person and Environment, Elizabeth D. Hutchison, Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Virginia Commonwealth University, explains drive theory. Drive theory, also known as instinct theory: "Proposes that human behavior is motivated by two basic instincts, thanatos, or the drive for aggression or destruction, and Eros, or the drive for life (two sexual gratification)" (Hutchison 61). More recent revisions of drive therapy suggest that drives for mastery and for connectedness to also motivate individuals.

Self-Perception Theory

The article, "Self-Perception Theory" (2008), asserts that as the self reportedly reflects the sold constant throughout and a person's life serves to validate the value of self-knowledge. Daryl Bem, social psychologist, developed self-perception theory, purportedly one of the most influential, yet simplistic, theories which explains self-knowledge develops. Self-perception theory consists of the following two basic claims.

1. A person comes to know his/her own attitudes, beliefs, and other internal states as they infer them from their personal behavior/s as well as the circumstance/s whereby they occur. For example, a student who observes him/herself regularly reading medical books may infer that he/she has an interest in psychology.

2. When an individual's internal cues prove to be weak, the individual, similar to a person observing him/her from the outside observer, has to rely on external cues of his/her behavior to infer his/her personal inner characteristics. For instance, the absence of external incentives to explain a person's behavior (e.g., grades), when they do not have any prior opinions regarding psychology reinforces the individual's conclusion that he/she honestly likes psychology. The person merely utilizes his/her behavior/s and the circumstances encompassing them to infer his/her personal attitudes and beliefs ("Self-Perception Theory" 2008).

Self-perception theory dramatically contrasts cognitive dissonance theory, the popular, principle psychological theory of how behavior shapes self-knowledge. "Cognitive dissonance theory assumes that people are motivated to maintain consistency between self beliefs and experience an unpleasant state of dissonance when they hold two inconsistent beliefs about the self" ("Self-Perception Theory" 2008 ¶ 3). When inconsistency existing between the person's perceptions, like: "I do not like psychology' and 'I constantly read about psychology' [occur, this] arouses dissonance" (Ibid.). Individuals are motivated to reduce dissonance they experience and strive to change one of the conflicting thoughts. To resolve dissidence, the individual will often make his/her initial attitude more favorable to the newer conflicting perception; consequently matching his/her attitude with his/her behavior.

The following two differences exist between cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory.

1. Cognitive dissonance theory, contrary to self-perception theory does not presume the need for any motivational state like dissonance reduction for change in the individual's self-knowledge. Self-perception theory merely mandates that the individual be willing to infer his/her personal attitudes and beliefs by taking into account the dispositional and environmental basis for his/her personal actions for the adjustments in self-knowledge to transpire.

2. Self-perception theory asserts that when the individual's internal cues of prior beliefs prove ambiguous or weak, the person can use his/her own behavior/s to infer self-knowledge. Cognitive dissonance theory, albeit, "assumes that people adjust self-knowledge only when the internal cues of prior beliefs are clear and conflict with their freely chosen behavior" ("Self-Perception Theory" 2008 ¶ 4).

When considered jointly, the two differences between have self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory direct psychologists to suggest both can explicate the individual's adjustment of self-knowledge under various conditions. "Self-perception theory explains the creation of new self-knowledge following behavior that does not conflict with clear initial self-views whereas cognitive dissonance explains change in existing self-knowledge following freely chosen behavior that does conflict with clear initial self-views" (Ibid.). Self-perception theory's contribution, however, extends beyond cognitive dissonance theory as it possesses the ability to explain more variations evidenced in self-attribution phenomenon. Ultimately, even when no inconsistency exists between the person's prior beliefs and behavior/s, self-perception theory can explain how the individual develops self-knowledge from his/her behavior. As self-perception theory possesses the capability to understand transitions in self-knowledge under a broad range of conditions, it makes the theory maintain its position as a primary influential theory of how a person can know him/herself.

A person typically prefers rewards that follow after he/she exerts greater effort/s as well as prefers rewards that come after greater delay after he/she invests greater effort. According to Jerome Alessandri, Jean-Claude Darcheville, and Yvonne Delevoye-Turrell, University of Lille III, Lille, France, with Thomas R. Zentall (2008), University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky in their study, "Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay": "This phenomenon can be interpreted as evidence for cognitive dissonance (or as justification of effort) but may also result from":

1. The contrast between the relatively greater effort and the signal for reinforcement or

2. The delay reduction signaled by the conditioned reinforce (Alessandri, Darcheville, Delevoye-Turrell, and Zentall 2008 ¶ 1).

During their study, which included 30 volunteer, undergraduate students; 10 males and 20 females, at the University of Lille III, Alessandri, Darcheville, Delevoye-Turrell, and Zentall (2008) investigated how prior force and prior time produce stimuli associated with equal reinforcement. They explain that cognitive dissonance theory asserts that when a discrepancy exists between beliefs and behavior or experience, "humans should attempt to reduce the discrepancy. The belief is that reinforcement should be commensurate with the effort required to obtain it" (Alessandri, Darcheville, Delevoye-Turrell, and Zentall ¶ 5). Experience, albeit, Alessandri, Darcheville, Delevoye-Turrell, and Zentall argue, does not support this particular belief. They propose that to reduce the dissonance, the individual should allocate added value to the outcome that required he person to invest greater effort to obtain it.

Self-discrepancy theory evolves from cognitive dissonance theory, which as Alessandri, Darcheville, Delevoye-Turrell, and Zentall (2008) explain, asserts that when incongruity exists between two or more psychological states, the individual experiences an aversive affective state within him/herself. In the study, "Self-Discrepancies and Negative Affect: The Moderating Roles of Private and Public Self-Consciousness," Paul M. Fromson (2006), Department of Psychology, Elon University, Elon, North Carolina, examines the relationship between self-discrepancies and negative effect. Fromson states: "A discrepancy may exist between an individual's actual self and one or more self-guides, but for such a discrepancy to engender unpleasant affect, it must first be accessed" (¶ 7). As self-discrepancies depict a shifting array of the person's self-conceptions, one particular discrepancy could manifest at a given moment because of the external social environment. For example, one's more "nurturing ought self" could become activated when a sibling suggests his parents upset because he has not phoned or visited with them recently.

During another scenario of self-discrepancies, a person's internal factors like professional or personal goals could kindle a discrepancy. For instance, the individual's better disciplined and healthy ideal self could contribute conflict to the self that is not health oriented. As shifts in external and internal factors potentially affect the individual's immediate focus, the question arises as to whether particular individuals due to personality traits prove more "chronically prone to access the self-discrepancies" (Fromson 2006 ¶ 7). Fromson assets that it appears rational that a person possessing a continuing tendency to reflect upon him/herself will experience an increased frequency with self-discrepancies if / when they are present. This in turn, increases the accessibility of the self-discrepancies. It has not yet been determined, albeit, if environmental manipulations intended to amplify a state of self-focused attention would strengthen discrepancy/affect correlations or merely trigger a previously strong, predisposed connection. Public self-consciousness, Fromson finds, does not contribute to the level that discrepancies evoke distinct emotions.

Amidst the myriad of theories on motivation, according to Marjolein Dieleman; Jurrien Toonen; both with Royal Tropical Institute Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Hamadassalia Toure, UNICEF Mali, Bamako, Mali, and Tim Martineau (2006), Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK, two diverse areas of motivation frequently become confused:

1. Motivation to be in a job and

2. motivation to perform (Introduction Section, ¶ 2).

As both the individual's motivation to be in a job as well as his/her motivation to perform proves significant, managers benefit from understanding ways their activities impact both these areas. In the managerial focused study, "The match between motivation and performance management of health sector workers in Mali," Dieleman, Tonen, Toure, and Martineau (2006) implement performance management to identify a number of factors that motivate as well as some that de-motivate Mali health workers. The exploratory qualitative study included 28 interviews and eight group discussions and examined the following subjects:

1. Motivating and de-motivating factors;

2. experiences with performance management, including: job descriptions, continuous education, supervision, performance appraisal and career development. (Dieleman, Tonen, Toure, and Martineau 2006, Abstract, Methods

Section)

Dieleman, Tonen, Toure, and Martineau (2006) use Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation at the workplace to explicate differences between the motivation to be in a job and the motivation to perform. Herzberg's theory differentiates satisfiers, the primary causes for job satisfaction, also known as the motivation to perform, from dissatisfiers. Dissatisfiers comprise the primary reasons workers experience job dissatisfaction, also referred to a person's de-motivation to remain in a job "when absent or perceived as insufficient. Examples of motivating factors are achievement, recognition, responsibility and the work itself. Dissatisfiers include: working conditions, salary, [and] relationship with colleagues, administrative supervision, etc." (Dieleman, Tonen, Toure, and Martineau 2006, Introduction Section, ¶ 2). Ultimately, the study's findings matched similar studies relating to motivation of health workers in resource-poor settings; determining the primary motivators for health workers in each of the eight professional categories linked to appreciation or recognition, responsibility and training.

In addition to salaries and incentives serving as significant factors for motivating workers, Dieleman, Tonen, Toure, and Martineau (2006) stress that motivation gains could be gained by implementing the following three practices:

1. Allocate greater responsibility to staff,

2. ensure staff remains responsible, and

3. develop methods for recognition.

Ultimately, gains in motivation realized through enhanced performance management practices; matched to motivating factors can help facilitate improvements in the organization. Herzberg's model can serve as a helpful way for managers to think about the two types of motivation and select suitable strategies to deal with them (Dieleman, Tonen, Toure, and Martineau 2006).

Goals

The encyclopedia entry, "Goals and Goal Setting" (2009), asserts that having a goal gives the organization a blueprint to help it determine a specific course of action and help it prepare for forthcoming challenges and/or changes. "A goal can be defined as a future state that an organization or individual strives to achieve. For each goal that an organization sets, it also sets objectives. An objective is a short-term target with measurable results" ("Goals and Goal Setting" ¶ 1). When the organization does not implement plainly defined goals and/or objectives, it will experience challenges managing activities as well as problems preparing for prospective events.

The organization's goals convey the following four basic purposes:

1. Give direction and guidance,

2. assist planning,

3. motivate and inspire employees, and ("Goals and Goal Setting" 2009).

4. help organizations evaluate and control performance ("Goals and Goal Setting" 2009).

When the organization implements goals, employees know the direction the organization expects to follow and the way it plans to travel there. When the employee confronts critical challenges, he/she can relate to the organization's goals for direction. As the employee frequently sets goals to satisfy a need he/she possesses, his/her personal/professional goals can motivate him/her and increase his/her performance. As the organization implements goals, it also needs to control those goals as well as evaluate them. This practice enables the organization to contrast its performance to goals and in response adjust the goals and/or performance as needed.

The individual's goals affect his/her performance in the organization through the following four mechanisms:

1. Goals steer action/s and effort/s in the direction of goal-related activities and direct them away from unconnected activities.

2. Goals rejuvenate the employee and daring goals direct him/her to exert greater effort than easier goals require.

3. Goals influence persistence and the employee exerts greater effort to attain high goals.

4. Goals encourage the employee to utilize his/her present knowledge to achieve a goal and/or to obtain the necessary knowledge to accomplish the designated goal. ("Goals and Goal Setting" 2009).

Goal Setting Theory

Goal setting theory asserts that goals can motivate a person's behavior. Goals comprise "desired accomplishments or attainments achieved through personal effort and perseverance," according to Elizabeth Reisinger Walker and Bethany Wexler, both graduate research assistants, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, Colleen Dilorio, Professor, Emery University, Cam Escoffery, Assistant Professor, Emery University, Frances McCarty, Assistant Professor, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, and Katherine A. Yeager (2009), research nurse senior at Emery University. In the study, "Content and characteristics of goals created during a self-management intervention for people with epilepsy," Walker, et al. analyze the participants' goals utilizing the following three dimensions:

1. "Content,

2. "specificity, and

3. "proximity" (Abstract).

Although goal setting depicts a straightforward, purportedly easy exercise, goals potentially depict potent incentive for a person to either change his/her behavior or to maintain particular behaviors. Goals "serve several functions including to help people focus attention on meeting desired behaviors, to increase personal efforts in working toward desired behaviors, and to enhance persistence when faced with obstacles" (Walker, et al. 2009 ¶ 2). When a person formally states his/her goals, this allows him/her to set internal standards for comparing his/her current behavior. If/when the individual fails to meet his/her predetermined standards, the discrepancy then transitions into an incentive for the person to reshape current behavior to meet his/her desired behaviors.

Difficulty, proximity and specificity constitute three conditions that influence goal effectiveness.

Specificity denotes the level of detail the goal relates. When a person sets specific goals, this gives him/her an unambiguous target to aim for "with specific actions, whereas more general goals are poorly described and cannot serve adequately as guides or incentives for behavior. In addition, goals are most effective when they are measurable and reflect personal interests and values (Walker, et al. 2009 ¶ 3). Proximity reflects the time frame allocated for the goal to be accomplished. When the goal's connection between the person's behavior and his/her accomplishment range close in time, they are considered in proximity. A person can typically achieve these types' goals within a reasonably short period as well as serve as impetus for him/her to set more remote goals. A goal has to sufficiently challenge the individual to stimulate interest and provide an incentive for him/her to try to reach the goal. It should not be so demanding, albeit, that the individual perceives it as unattainable. Instead, a goal works best when it ranges from moderate to difficult.

Teams may or may not prove to be effective in an organization. Some even prove to be extremely dysfunctional. "If the role of team is to be positive," Deepak Aggarwal, Consultant, Aptech Soft Skill Limited, New Delhi, Suneeta Singh, Sr. Faculty Member, Power Management Institute, and Ashis K. Chatterjee (2007), Research Officer, Power Management Institute, explain in the article, "Team building intervention," people must learn how to make them work effectively" (¶ 1). Evidence demonstrates that utilizing team goals encourages individuals to adapt or revise their task performance strategies; potentially contributing to helping the team work more effectively.

Aggarwal, Singh, and Chatterjee (2007) explain that goal setting theory adheres to the principle that with adequate levels of ability and goal commitment, greater goal difficulty stimulates performance increases. Successful team goal setting occurs with specific team performance goals being set that possess sufficient difficulty instead of vague or undemanding goals. Commitment to a goal specifically serves as a function of the expectation that a goal can be attained as well as contributes to the attractiveness (value) of goal attainment.

Research reveals that setting team goals for teams working on tasks that require members to cooperate with and/or coordinate between other team members contributes to higher performance compared to when the team operates without any set goals or specific performance goals for individual team members. Nevertheless, when team performance "requires cooperation between group members, assigning a team performance goal and separate individual performance goals are likely to result in team members focusing predominantly on their individual goals to the detriment of the overall team's performance" (Aggarwal, Singh, and Chatterjee 2007, Team vs. Individual Goals Section). When teams perform tasks that demand the members significantly cooperate and depend on each other, setting individual goals that aim to make the most of each member's contribution to the team's capacity to effectively perform with an overall team goal will most likely prove to be the best approach. Instead of each team member focusing exclusively on his/her particular input and performances, this scenario transitions the team's performance into the priority. Feedback and incentives then need to be provided at both the team and individual levels. This two-pronged approach, with team members highly committing to both individual and team performance, contributes to the highest team performance.

Goal Attainment

Key determinants contributing to attainment attractiveness or attaining a goal, Aggarwal, Singh, and Chatterjee (2007) assert include, but may not be limited to the following:

Participation in goal setting, provision of performance feedback, self-confidence, group norms, and the provision of incentives (Aggarwal, Singh, and Chatterjee 2007 Goal Setting Section, ¶ 1).

Many organizations increasingly perceive teamwork as a significant issue with team building currently comprising popular, potentially potent effective ways to help improve the organization's health and/or success. Using team goals appears to be one particularly effective way to not only enhance individual task performance but also develop team work as well as the team's effectiveness.

In the syndicated newspaper article, "Organizations need effective leaders," Sarabjit Jagirdar (2010) argues that the Expectancy Theory of motivation Victor Vroom proposed in 1999 proves more relevant than the other motivation theories currently being routinely implemented. Jagirdar explains that one can classify motivation theories by their focus, which contributes to the various types of theories, like the following six examples, proposed to explain motivation at work.

1. Based on need (Need Theories - for ex. Abraham Maslow's Need Hierarchy,

McGregor's Theory X and Y, McClelland's Need Theory and Clayton

Alderfer's

ERG Theory)

2. Based on experiences that satisfied and dissatisfied people at work (for ex.

Hertzberg's Two Factory Theory)

3. Based on social exchange process (for ex. Adam's Equity Theory)

4. Based on personal perception (for ex. Vroom's Expectancy Theory)

5. Based on goals to achieve (for ex. Goal Setting Theory)

6. Based on job characteristics (for ex. Job rotation, job enlargement and job enrichment). (Jagirdar 2010 ¶ 6)

The primary premise of the expectancy theory of motivation, Jagirdar (2010) explains, proposes that the person desires particular outcomes of his/her behavior and performance, potentially perceived as consequences or rewards behavior. The individual also believes that relationships exist between the effort he/she exerts and the performance he/she achieves as well as the outcomes he/she receives. The expectancy model of motivation's main components include "the expectancy, which is the belief that effort leads to performance, the instrumentality, which is the belief that performance is related to rewards and the valence, which is the value or importance one places on a particular reward" (Jagirdar, Expectancy theory of motivation Section, ¶ 6). Disbeliefs relating to expectancy, instrumentality, and valence that critically relate to a person's motivation, according to the expectancy theory framework, contribute to motivational problems, which helps explain why some individuals may not be motivated on their jobs. When/if the dearth of motivation relates to the employee's disbelief that his/her effort will result in positive results; the explanation to finding the solution can be found in altering the disbelief.

Motivation in Factories

Factories rank high among the organizations worst impacted by high levels of labor turnover. Having to repeatedly recruit and train a continual stream of employees, albeit, can prove expensive for employers. The article, "Motivation: Stemming the flow" (2010), asserts that when the organization invests in "motivating staff in these environments [factories]," however, it "can show results even after a short period of time" (¶ 1). Positioning benefits designed to motivate and retain staff in place, for example, can help the employer move the employee's focus away from work he/she frequently perceive as boring or repetitive and stoping him/her from perceiving his/her role as simply a means of earning cash, to perks that give him/her incentive to attend and actively engage in work. The following motivational benefits could profit an organization experiencing high staff turnover as they simultaneously promote the employees' motivation to perform .