1. Respond to students #1& #2 on their DQ , ask them a question also.

2. Respond to two students to my original responses .

(respond in a substantive way , Your responses should contribute scholarly to the discussion by challenging a position, providing additional support, or taking the debate in a new but reasonable direction. “Me too” responses are unacceptable; open dialogue creates an opportunity to engage with and learn from your fellow course participants.)

Student #1

DQ#1

Motivation is the desire and willingness to do better, be better and want better in layman terms. Motivation can lead anyone to be successful in any aspect of life. Not everyone is motivated in life. Those not motivated have yet to find what makes them. When it comes to workplace motivation, it is different. There are many people that are not motivated but rather do the bare minimum at work to get by. There are others that work hard because it’s a value that was instilled in them but not necessarily motivated. And then you have those employees that are motivated that will work hard and have the desire to be where they are in that point. But want more and do whatever it takes meet the goals set in place by them.

Motivation does drive both employees and organizations to success and it is important. “Autonomously motivated employees are likely to realize better outcomes for both themselves and their employers, through improved effective performance and higher levels of well-being (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Nel, 2014)” (Heyns and Kerr, 2017). In an organization, leaders and managers should be able to know their employees and what motivates them. Although there are many factors that lead to one’s motivations. Maybe then, they can have an impact on how employees work due to motivated employees lead to improved job performance. “A massive study of American workers reported by Hall (1994) detailed how the vast majority of people wish to work and perform well at their jobs, but are prevented from doing so by restrictive practices of their supervisors and limited policies of their companies’” (Pinder, 2008, P. 17).

Reference:

Heyns, Marita M., and Marilyn D. Kerr. “Generational Differences in Workplace Motivation.” SA Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 16, 2018

Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

Student #2

DQ #2

Johns (2006) wrote about the main effects of contextual variables on work motivation while lamenting researchers’ failure to consider the joint or interactive effects of such variables. Read Johns’ article. What insights does it provide? How can his assertions be applied to work motivation, the workplace environment, and practitioners’ understanding of these mechanisms? Compare Johns’ assertions to Miner’s article. How do they differ? How are they the same?

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687

Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 250-268. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.10932132

Response to my post DQ#2

Your interpretation of the documents is on point. Also, the emphasis you put on the relationship between context, job performance and motivation catches my attention. There is no doubt that context has a lot to see with an employee’s job performance and motivation. As you mentioned, when the work environment is conducive, we can predict that work motivation and job performance will follow. However, the question is: Are there situations where the work environment is favorable but the employee fails to be motivated? In other words, aren’t there somo factors external to the work environment that can prevent the employee from being motivation even in the presence of a conducive work environment?

((My Original post))>>>below

((((((The behavior of the employees is influenced by the work environment of the work context in which they are exposed to. In other words, employees will tend to become more motivated to work when the environment they work in is conducive and align with their values and goals. The context or the environment is an essential variable in employee job motivation since the environment dictates the level of employee job satisfaction. It is essential to understand that work is a significant part of an individual’s life in the sense that it affects the individual’s life and well-being. Conducive work environment, work context, job context, and hygiene factor is essential motivators that influence employee job satisfaction according to John (2006). The assertion made by John (2006) and Miner (2003) contrast in the sense that they both focus on employee behavior and motivation. Employee behavior theories are the essence of the Miner (2003) which best explains the assertions made by John (2006) in regards employee motivation. The employee behaviors are influenced by the work environment, and this is further explained through employee behavior theories.

References

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687

Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 250-268. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.10932132)))))

I will post 4th one soon.