Motivation

This paper presents the findings with regards to the motivation levels of Officers in the Defense Sector under several parameters. The Indian Army serves as the ultimate 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 team and fosters esprit De corps. Motivation thrives on a continuing sense of purpose and it is the Job of the commander to instill this purpose.

Skill in the techniques of leadership 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 focused 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.

We Will Write
A Custom Essay Sample On
Motivation
For Only $13.90/page

The Indian National 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 leadership behavior, organizational culture, team spirit, personal effectiveness and effect of financial motivators (independent variables), as reflected through analysis of data by using Crossbar and Chi-square method is presented as follows: 6. Extent of Leadership Behavior * Level of Employee Motivation Table 6. : Crossbar of Extent of Leadership Behavior * Level of Motivation in Defense Crossbar Level of Employee Motivation Low Medium High Total Autocratic Count 23 11 0 34 % within Extent of Leadership Behavior 67. 6% 32. 4% 100. 0% Participative Count 6 64 9 79 7. 6% 81. 0% 11. 4% 100. 0% count 18 1937 Extent of Leadership Behavior Charismatic 48. 6% 51 100. 0% Total count 2993 28 150 19. 3% 62. 0% 18. 7% 100. 0% Table 6. 2: Chi Square of Extent of Leadership Behavior * Level of Motivation Chi- Square Tests Value UDF Assam. Gigs. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 94. AAA 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 expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6. 35. 124 Fig. 6. 1: Graph for Extent of Leadership Behavior * Level of Employee Motivation 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 medium 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 level of motivation, whereas the relative 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 (Table 6. 2) has been seed, Here, the null hypotheses is that there is no relationship between leadership behavior and level of employee motivation.

A high Chi Square value, I. E. 94. 085 confirms this relationship. Asymptotic significance 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 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 Highly 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 expected c oumountess than 5. The minimum expected count is 8. 77. Fig. 6. 2: Graph 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 moderately 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 highly 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 hypotheses, 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 Spirit * Table 6. : CrCrossbarf Team Spirit * Level of Motivation LOW count 24 24 0 48 within -ream spirit 50. 0% 50. 0% 100. 0% Moderate count 5 48 5 58 % within -ream spirit 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 spirit 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 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 significant role in employee motivation. As the team spirit of employee increases, the level of motivation tends to increase. 6. 4 Personal Effectiveness * 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 medium 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 employee 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 Financial Motivators * Level of Employee Motivation Table 6. 9: CrosCrossbarEffect of Financial 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 financial motivators and level of motivation of the employees. It is evident that 64% of the employees affected 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 insignificant 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.

×
Sarah
Danielle
Wilson
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper?
How about receiving a customized one?
Check it out
HAVEN'T FOUND THE ESSAY YOU WANT?
For Only $13.90/page