Raudsepp reported (Table 7-5) on the parameters that motivated engineers in different fields to accept a position. How, in your view, might their motivation to perform effectively once they were in that positions differ?
From Babcock, Berelson and Steiner have defined motive as “an inner state that energizes, activates, or moves (hence ‘motivation’), and that directs or channels behavior toward goals.” Robbins defines motivation in an organization sense as “the willingness to exert high levels of effort to reach organizational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual need.” From Draft, motivation refers to the forces either within or external to a person that arouse enthusiasm and persistence to pursue a certain course of action. For example, Dale Carnegie states that “there is only one way under heaven to get anybody to do anything. And that is making other person want to do it.” Therefore, we need to learn why people want to do things and how they can persuaded (or motivated) to do those things that will enhance organizational goals.
Employee motivation affects productivity, and part of a manager’s job is to channel motivation toward the accomplishment of organizational goals. The study of motivation helps managers understand what prompts people to initiate action, what influence their choice of action, and why they persist in that action over time.
In my point of view, motivated engineer will perform effectively once they were in that positions differ. Type of work, interesting and diversified is very important to an engineer because they can’t work without their interesting. For example, research engineer puts a high value on professional autonomy and publication of results, they can’t perform effectively if he or she doesn’t have interesting on their research field. Besides, salary also an important factor that cause engineer to perform effectively. For an example, a design engineer need to perform...