• The Complete Research Material is averagely 61 pages long and it is in Ms Word Format, it has 1-5 Chapters.
  • Major Attributes are Abstract, All Chapters, Figures, Appendix, References.
  • Study Level: BTech, BSc, BEng, BA, HND, ND or NCE.
  • Full Access Fee: ₦4,000

Get the complete project » Instant Download Active


Title page        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           i

Certification    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           ii

Dedication      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           iii

Acknowledgement      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           iv

Table of Contents       -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           vi

List of Tables  -           -           -           -           -           -           --          -           -           viii

Abstract           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           ix


Introduction    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           1

Statement of the Problem        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           11

Purpose of the Study -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           12

Significance of the Study       -           -           -           -           -           -           -           12


Theoretical Review     -           -           -           -           --          -           -           -           14

Empirical Review       -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           29

Hypotheses     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           34

Operational Definition of Terms         -           -           -           -           -           -           35



Design             -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           36

Setting -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           36

Participants     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           36       

Instruments     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           37       

Procedure        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           38       

Statistics          -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           39       


Summary of Findings -           -           -           -           -           -           -           40


Discussion of findings            -           -           -           -           -           -           43

Conclusion      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           44

Implications and Recommendation    -           -           -           -           -           45

Limitations of the Study         -           -           -           -           -           -           46

Suggestions for Further Study            -           -           -           -           -           46

References      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           47







Table 1: Table of Mean showing influence of Organizational Type and

   Work-Place Conflict on Achievement Motivation among employees        40


Table 2: Summary of 2x2 ANOVA Table showing the main and

                interaction effects of Organizational type and Work-Place Conflict

    on Achievement Motivation among employees     -           -           -           41


















This study examined the influence of organisational type and work-place conflict on achievement motivation among employees. Two hundred and sixty-seven (267) participants made up of 131 males and 136 females were purposively selected from Zenith Bank, Abak Road, U.B.A PLC located along Nwaniba Road, First Bank, Aka Road, Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Education, Federal Ministry of Education, Federal Secretariat, all in Uyo Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. Achievement Motivation Scale developed by Ray (1979), and Workplace Conflict Scale developed by Jenn (1995) were the instruments used for data collection. This study utilized a 2 x 2 factorial design. A 2-way analysis of variance was employed for data analysis. Results revealed that organizational type had no significant influence on achievement motivation among employees [F (1,266) = 2.89; P.>.05]. Results also revealed that work place conflict had a significant influence on achievement motivation among employees [F (1,258) = 1.04; P<.05]. Result further revealed that organisational type and work place conflict did not jointly influence achievement motivation among employees [F (1,258) = 5.15 P<.05].   Implications of the study were discussed. Limitations as well as suggestions for further studies were also provided.



Motivation directly relates to the achievement in the workplace (Rose & Waterhouse, 2004). Achievement in the workplace deals with the pride and sense of accomplishment employees feel about their jobs and employers. Managers who notice a decline in achievement must take proactive steps to implement strategies to increase motivation and employee morale. Neglecting to motivate workers result in dissatisfied workers, which hurts productivity and causes reduced turnover (Kuo-Ying, 2006). There are several ways employees are motivated to achieve; they include employee recognition, prompt promotion and allow them freedom to be in-charge (control) among others. Employees’ recognition goes a long way toward increasing and maintaining achievement. Employees who are valued for their contributions desire to continue contributing and striving for success. Managers who never thank their employees only cause a decline in motivation to achieve (Uksen, 2009). Managers do not need to purchase extravagant gifts as a way to motivate employees. A simple thank you for a job well done makes an employee feel like a valuable part of the team (Uksen, 2009). Other ways to recognize employees include a paid day off, a card expressing gratitude and flexibility in work schedules. Employee recognition is most effective when employees are earning fair wages and when the recognition is sincere (Ijek, 2009).

People with high achievement motivation are typically driven either by the desire to feel accomplished, the desire to look good to supervisors, co-workers or customers, the fear of failure or a combination of these factors(Ijek, 2009). As a manager, the burning desire for business success and profit may contribute to overemphasis on control in operations and decision-making. Additionally, managers and employees driven to success may instinctively want similar control over the work and outcomes (Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007). This can challenge employees’ abilities to develop a collaborative workplace focused on shared vision and goals.

Closely tied to the desire to control work situations and outcome is a higher propensity for stress. People desperately driven to accomplishment may feel frustration, hopeless or stress when a problem or setback occurs (Hunter et al., 2007). While high achievers usually work through temporary setbacks, they often experience stress from trying to predict the unpredictable or to pre-empt negative factors. Additionally, achievement motivation is perpetual. Once a high achiever accomplishes a desired outcome, he simply raises the bar for the next project or time frame (Alchian & Demstez, 1972).  Achievement motivation is essentially a need for success or accomplishments. In employees, it includes the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that drive a worker toward goals or accomplishments. As a small-business owner, understanding one own level of achievement motivation as well of that of other employees is important. Though it can drive performance, achievement motivation does also present some challenges (Brown, 2000).

The first variable in this study is organizational status. Organizational status is viewed as a spectrum embracing changes within the public sector from a government department to a trading fund or to a public corporation, as well as changes in ownership between the public and private sectors (privatization and nationalization). Organizational status is the standing or position of an organization in a stratification system based on social honor or esteem (Brown, 2000). The definition draws on  Weber’s (1972) conception of status as a dimension of vertical ordering distinct from those of class (life chances in a market) and power (the capacity to command the actions of others). Weber (1972) had in mind people, but his tripartite classification of stratification systems 'is reasonably applied to organizations as well.

The concept of status in recent organizational study is associated primarily with the work of Podonly (1993), who views it as a generalized and fungible resource enabling, in his research, leading investment banks to charge their corporate clients higher premier for similar services. However, the idea that organizations may be ranked ‘or stratified by status, prestige, honor and legitimacy has been floating around organizational theory for some time, if never commanding center stage, Perrow (1961) saw organizations such as hospitals making claims to prestige before various publics as strategy of managing resource dependence. Such claims, he suggested, were especially likely where the organizations capabilities and outputs were` sufficiently complex or ambiguous that they were difficult for outsiders to assess.

Economists have focused on the difference in incentives between public and private organizations arising from differences in the ability of owners to monitor managers: a problem which arises when the goals of principals and agents diverge. In the property rights literature, it is argued that organizations with private property rights will have higher efficiency leading to more profit than organizations in the public sector where rights to profit are diffused and unclear (Alchian & Demstez, 1972). Even in the private sector joint stock companies where there is a divorce between management and ownership (directors and shareholders), property rights theorist suggest that the private capital market and the threat of takeover limit managerial discretionary behaviour. The absence of similar transferable property rights in public sector assets means that there is 'no comparable takeover threat (Alchian, 1965). Both public and private organizations have different goal and are managed based on these set goals. Most public establishment are manage to be of service to the community whereas, private organization exist to make profit. A significant difference is noticed between public sector and private sector organizations (Ferin, 2000).

 Thereis inconsistent report on the statistical relationship between organizational status and achievement motivation. Some studies revealed that organisational status influence achievement motivation, while some revealed that there is no significant difference between private and public workers on their achievement motivation. Ferin (2000) revealed that public firm workers are more involved in practice that violet organizational Standard than those working in private organisations because of strive for personal achievement whereas private are well paid and therefore, they are more motivated to achieve organizational goals. Ferin, (2000) explained that, it is because public workers do not have a stake in the organization and are less supervised and may not face strict penalty for not achieving organizational goals un like the private firm workers who are closely supervised and are punished for not achieving organizational goals. Hence, private firm workers are more likely to be motivated to achieve than public workers. In the same line, Edward and Donald (2009) also reported that private workers had more motivated to achieve than public workers. These differences in the degree of achievement motivation is linked to the closed supervision and direction provided in private organizations compared to the non-chalant attitude of directors in public organizations.

On the other hand, Orhuch (2007) reported that organizational status does not influence achievement motivation, meaning that both private and public staff have the same level achievement motivation. Also, Ancana and Peacia (2006) revealed that both private and public firm workers have the same level of achievement motivation except being influenced by other factors such as work environment and leadership style. Ancana and Peacia (2006) posit that achievement motivation is not about organizational status but about the individual. 

Another variable of interest in this study is workplace conflict. Workplace conflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people working together (Richard, 1996). Conflict takes many forms in organizations. There is the inevitable clash between formal authority and power and those individuals and groups affected. There are disputes over how revenues should be divided, how the work should be done, and how long and hard people should work(Liu, Spector & Shi, 2007). There are jurisdictional disagreements among individuals, departments, and between unions and managements. There are subtler forms of conflict involving rivalries, jealousies, personality clashes, role definitions, and struggles for power and favor. There is also conflict within individuals – between competing needs and demands – to which individuals respond in different ways (Chris, 2007)

There are several types of work place conflict. Conflict affecting organizations can occur in individuals, between individuals, and between groups. Conflicts within work groups are often caused by struggles over control, status, and scarce resources (Daniel & Robert, 2006). Conflicts between groups in organizations have similar origins. The constructive resolution of such conflicts can most often be achieved through a rational process of problem solving, coupled with a willingness to explore issues and alternatives and to listen to each other (John & William,2009)Personal conflict: A personal conflict involves a conflict between two people, most often from a mutual dislike or personality clash (Henry & Börje, 2011).  According to Boston University FSAO (2009), "Causes for workplace conflict can be personality or style differences and personal problems such as substance abuse, childcare issues, and family problems. Organizational factors such as leadership, management, budget, and disagreement about core values can also contribute." University of Colorado–Boulder (2010) cites poor communication, different values, differing interests, scarce resources, personality clashes, and poor performance as primary causes of workplace conflict. Intra-group conflict: Conflict arises in groups because of the scarcity of freedom, position, and resources (De Angelis, 2008). People who value independence tend to resist the need for interdependence and, to some extent, conformity within a group. People who seek power therefore struggle with others for position or status within the group. Rewards and recognition are often perceived as insufficient and improperly distributed, and members are inclined to compete with each other for these prizes (De Angelis, 2008).

In western culture, winning is more acceptable than losing, and competition is more prevalent than cooperation, all of which tends to intensify intra-group conflict (Lindred, 2000). Group meetings are often conducted in a win-lose climate — that is, individual or subgroup interaction is conducted for the purpose of determining a winner and a loser rather than for achieving mutual problem solving (Lindred, 2000). Inter-group conflict: Intergroup conflict occurs in four general forms. Horizontal strain involves competition between functions, for example, sales versus production, research and development versus engineering, purchasing versus legal, line versus staff, and so on (Joseph, 2010). Vertical strain involves competition between hierarchical levels, for example, union versus management, foremen versus middle management, shop workers versus foremen.  A struggle between a group of employees and management is an example of vertical strain or conflict. A clash between a sales department and production over inventory policy would be an example of horizontal strain (Joseph, 2010).

Certain activities and attitudes are typical in groups involved in a win-lose conflict. Each side closes ranks and prepares itself for battle (Alfred, 1999).  Members show increased loyalty and support for their own groups. Minor differences between group members tend to be smoothed over, and deviants are dealt with harshly. The level of morale in the groups increases and infuses everyone with competitive spirit (Pregain, 2010). The power structure becomes better defined, as the real leaders come to the surface and members rally around the best thinkers and talkers. In addition, each group tends to distort both its own views and those of the competing group. What is perceived as good  in one's own position is emphasized, what is bad is ignored; the position of the other group is assessed as uniformly bad, with little good to be acknowledged or accepted (Pregain, 2010).  Thus, the judgment and objectivity of both groups are impaired. When such groups meet to discuss their differences, constructive, rational behavior is severely inhibited.Each side phrases its questions and answers in a way that strengthens its own position and disparages the other's. Hostility between the two groups increases; mutual understandings are buried in negative stereotypes. It is easy to see that under the conditions described above, mutual solutions to problems cannot be achieved (Pregain, 2010). As a result, the side having the greater power wins; the other side loses. Or the conflict may go unresolved, and undesirable conditions or circumstances continue. Or the conflict may be settled by a higher authority.

Disputes settled on the basis of power, such as through a strike or a lockout in a labor-management dispute, are often deeply resented by the loser (Utoma, 2003). Such settlements may be resisted and the winner defeated in underground ways that are difficult to detect and to counter. When this happens, neither side wins; both are losers. If the conflict is left unresolved, as when both sides withdraw from the scene, intergroup cooperation and effectiveness may be seriously impaired to the detriment of the entire organization (Osin & Frank, 2014).  Disputes that are settled by higher authority also may cause resentment and what is called lose-lose consequences. Such settlements are invariably made on the basis of incomplete information — without data that the conflict itself obscures — and therefore are poor substitutes for mutually reasoned solutions. Again, both sides have lost. A specific approach to resolving intergroup conflict is outlined in the next chapte

You either get what you want or your money back. T&C Apply

You can find more project topics easily, just search

Quick Project Topic Search