Volume 34, Issue 132 (October 2021)                   IJN 2021, 34(132): 63-76 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Kaabomeir N, Hasanalipour P, Mousavi S. The Relationship between Job Motivation Dimensions and Nurses' Subjective Well-being through the Mediating Role of Energy at Workplace. IJN 2021; 34 (132) :63-76
URL: http://ijn.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3494-en.html
1- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
2- Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran (Corresponding Author) Tel: +989113413741 Email: hasanalipour@alumni.um.ac.ir
3- Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Ahwaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract:   (1563 Views)
Background & Aims: Nurses are the largest group of professionals among health care workers who play a significant role in the community health system. Nurses work in environments where the life and death of patients are the most important issues, so their health and well-being become important and having a happy and positive spirit can help them improve their health and that of their patients. Organizations are also increasingly aware of the importance of their employees' well-being in striving to gain sustainable competitive advantages. Over the past decade, the concept of subjective well-being (SWB) has become a popular research topic, and many researchers have examined its implications at the organizational, group, and individual levels in the workplace. Subjective well-being helps organizations to effectively engage their employees at work in an attempt to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. Sustaining employees' subjective well-being is a difficult task. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation with nurses' subjective well-being through the mediating role of energy in the workplace.
Materials & Methods: This correlational study was conducted in 2020 following structural equation modeling (SEM). The statistical population of this study included all nurses at Baqai Hospital in Ahvaz. The total number of nurses in this hospital was about 200. According to the population size, all nurses were selected as the sample through census method. Among the collected questionnaires, 193 questionnaires were analyzed. The instruments used in this study were: Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS) developed by Gagné et al., Energy Scale (ES) developed by Atwater and Carmeli, and Subjective Well-Being Scale (SWBS) developed by Diener et al. The theoretical research model and indirect effects were evaluated using structural equation modeling with partial least squares (PLS-SEM) approach in Smart-PLS3 software.
Results: According to the results, the scales used in the present study were reliable, and their reliability indices were estimated as follows: (Cronbach’s alpha: intrinsic motivation=0.91, extrinsic motivation=0.83, amotivation=0.77, energy=0.90, subjective well-being=0.89; composite reliability: intrinsic motivation=0.93, extrinsic motivation=0.89, amotivation=0.87, energy=0.92, subjective well-being=0.92) and convergent validity (AVE: intrinsic motivation=0.68, extrinsic motivation=0.65, amotivation=0.69, energy=0.59, subjective well-being=0.69). The discriminant validity was acceptable as well. Also, the general model of the present study had a strong and very good fit according to the goodness of fit index (GoF = 0.53). The results showed that intrinsic motivation (β = 0.43, p <0.001) and amotivation (β = -0.19, p <0.037) had significant positive and negative relationships with energy, respectively. The relationship between extrinsic motivation and energy was not significant (p > 0.05). Also, the relationship between energy and subjective well-being was positive and significant (β = 0.68, p <0.0001). Overall, intrinsic motivation and amotivation predicted 39% of energy variance, and energy predicted 46% of mental well-being. Regarding the mediating role of energy, the results showed that energy mediated the relationship between intrinsic motivation and subjective well-being (β =0.29, p <0.001) and the relationship between amotivation and subjective well-being (β =-0.13, p <0.042).
Conclusion: According to the results, intrinsic motivation and amotivation affect nurses' energy in the workplace. Therefore, the researchers of the present study have several practical suggestions for managers to conserve and nurture the energy and subjective well-being of their workforce. In this regard, it is suggested that managers increase the internal motivation of employees and reduce their amotivation by increasing participation, increasing the level of authority, the possibility of career advancement, as well as determining more benefits. Creating opportunities for the growth and development of individual skills through empowerment programs, as well as facilitating success by minimizing barriers and reducing pressures and requirements, can also provide the basis for increasing employees' intrinsic motivation. Also, our findings demonstrate that energy is closely related to subjective well-being. Therefore, we recommend that HR practitioners carefully recruit resilient and enthusiastic individuals with high energy levels and an overall positive approach even in adverse and stressful conditions. Moreover, firms should make sincere efforts to promote optimal employee energy levels by formal and informal ways such as: (1) encouraging them to behave enthusiastically, (2) showing persistence even when they encounter negative situations, (3) providing a flexible work environment by allowing short breaks so that employees can relax with co-workers, and (4) holding training and energy management workshops. Here, the real challenge for management is not only to reach an optimal level of employee energy but also to maintain that level. Our study contributes to the subjective well-being literature by bringing attention to the direct and indirect mechanisms that influence the relationship between employee motivation and subjective well-being. We believe that further research in this area will better allow managers to understand how to promote employee happiness and overall well-being. There are few limitations that are needed to be considered while interpreting our research findings. The first limitation of this study is common method variance and mono-method since we utilized self-reported measures for all the study variables, which may inflate or deflate the association between study variables. Future researchers may utilize alternative data sources to reduce mono-method bias, such as manager’s appraisals for assessing employee energy level and peer/colleague rating of work motivation in order to verify our proposed model. The second potential limitation is that causality among the study variables cannot be drawn because this study is correlational. Therefore, future studies may try to examine the causation among the study variables by utilizing longitudinal and experimental study designs.
Full-Text [PDF 1048 kb]   (630 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: nursing
Received: 2021/07/14 | Accepted: 2021/10/13 | Published: 2021/10/13

1. Calvard TS, Sang KJ. Complementing psychological approaches to employee well-being with a socio-structural perspective on violence in the workplace: An alternative research agenda. Int J Human Resource Manag. 2017;28(16):2256-74. [DOI:10.1080/09585192.2017.1314976]
2. Nielsen K, Nielsen MB, Ogbonnaya C, Känsälä M, Saari E, Isaksson K. Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress. 2017;31(2):101-20. [DOI:10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463]
3. Diener E, Ryan K. Subjective well-being: A general overview. South African J Psychol. 2009;39(4):391-406. [DOI:10.1177/008124630903900402]
4. Page KM, Vella-Brodrick DA. The 'what','why'and 'how'of employee well-being: A new model. Social indicators research. 2009;90(3):441-58. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-008-9270-3]
5. Peyvastegar M. Relationship between creativity and subjective well-being. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2010;4(3):207-13.
6. Luhmann M, Intelisano S. Hedonic adaptation and the set point for subjective well-being. In E, Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers. 2018.
7. Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics. 2014;83(1):10-28. [DOI:10.1159/000353263] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Ghosh A, Deb A. Positive psychology progress in India: Accomplishments and pathways ahead. Psychological Studies. 2016;61(3):113-25. [DOI:10.1007/s12646-016-0367-5]
9. Bakker AB, Oerlemans W. Subjective well-being in organizations. The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. 2011;49:178-89. [DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0014]
10. Yosefi M. Comparison of happiness, psycholigy well-being and job perfectionism among women nurses of different sections of haspitals in isfahan at 2014. Avicenna Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Care. 2015;23(2):52-62.
11. Berglund V, Johansson Sevä I, Strandh M. Subjective well-being and job satisfaction among self-employed and regular employees: does personality matter differently? J Small Busin Entrepreneurship. 2016;28(1):55-73. [DOI:10.1080/08276331.2015.1115699]
12. Robertson IT, Birch AJ, Cooper CL. Job and work attitudes, engagement and employee performance: Where does psychological well‐being fit in?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2012;33(3): 224-32. [DOI:10.1108/01437731211216443]
13. Butt TH, Abid G, Arya B, Farooqi S. Employee energy and subjective well-being: a moderated mediation model. The Service Industries Journal. 2020;40(1-2):133-57. [DOI:10.1080/02642069.2018.1563072]
14. Quinn RW, Dutton JE. Coordination as energy-in-conversation. Acad Manag Review. 2005;30(1):36-57. [DOI:10.5465/amr.2005.15281422]
15. Vasconcelos AF. Positive Organizational Scholarship Concept: an Overview and Future Studies1. REAd. Revista Eletrônica de Administração (Porto Alegre). 2018:85-128. [DOI:10.1590/1413-2311.179.67731]
16. Russo M, Shteigman A, Carmeli A. Workplace and family support and work-life balance: Implications for individual psychological availability and energy at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2016;11(2):173-88. [DOI:10.1080/17439760.2015.1025424]
17. Menges JI, Tussing DV, Wihler A, Grant AM. When job performance is all relative: How family motivation energizes effort and compensates for intrinsic motivation. Acad Manag J. 2017;60(2):695-719. [DOI:10.5465/amj.2014.0898]
18. Morales-Rodríguez FM, Pérez-Mármol JM, Brown T. Education burnout and engagement in occupational therapy undergraduate students and its associated factors. Frontiers in psychology. 2019;10:2889. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02889] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Bakker AB. An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current directions in psychological science. 2011;20(4):265-9. [DOI:10.1177/0963721411414534]
20. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020;61:101860. [DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860]
21. Ramírez García I, Del Cerro Ramón S, Fornells Herrera A. The role of work motivation based on values in employee's retention in the 21st century. Management Studies. 2019; 7(2): 149-56. [DOI:10.17265/2328-2185/2019.02.007]
22. Van den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang CH, Rosen CC. A review of self-determination theory's basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management. 2016;42(5):1195-229. [DOI:10.1177/0149206316632058]
23. Hagger MS, Hardcastle SJ, Chater A, Mallett C, Pal S, Chatzisarantis NL. Autonomous and controlled motivational regulations for multiple health-related behaviors: between-and within-participants analyses. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: An Open Access Journal. 2014;2(1):565-601. [DOI:10.1080/21642850.2014.912945] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Deci EL, Olafsen AH, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior. 2017;4:19-43. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108]
25. De Cooman R, Stynen D, Van den Broeck A, Sels L, De Witte H. How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: Implications for work effort. J Appl Social Psychol. 2013;43(6):1342-52. [DOI:10.1111/jasp.12143]
26. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 2008;49(1):14-23. [DOI:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14]
27. Kark R, Van Dijk D, Vashdi DR. Motivated or demotivated to be creative: The role of self‐regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes. Applied Psychology. 2018;67(1):186-224. [DOI:10.1111/apps.12122]
28. Slemp GR, Kern ML, Patrick KJ, Ryan RM. Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and emotion. 2018;42(5):706-24. [DOI:10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Howard J, Gagné M, Morin AJ, Van den Broeck A. Motivation profiles at work: A self-determination theory approach. J Vocation Behav. 2016;95:74-89. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.004]
30. Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, Crevier-Braud L, Van den Broeck A, Aspeli AK, Bellerose J, Benabou C, Chemolli E, Güntert ST, Halvari H. The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. Europ J Work Organiz Psychol. 2015;24(2):178-96. [DOI:10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892]
31. Tremblay MA, Blanchard CM, Taylor S, Pelletier LG, Villeneuve M. Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2009;41(4):213-26. [DOI:10.1037/a0015167]
32. Atwater L, Carmeli A. Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009;20(3):264-75. [DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.009]
33. Yun YH, Rhee YE, Kang E, Sim JA. The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Subjective Well-Being Inventory in the general Korean population: psychometric properties and normative data. Int J Environm Res Public Health. 2019;16(9):1538. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph16091538] [PMID] [PMCID]
34. Shakuna KS, Mohamad N, Ali AB. Modelling professional performance of teachers' scales in libyan schools. Int J Manag appl Res. 2016;3(3):120-9. [DOI:10.18646/2056.33.16-010]
35. Schuiuma G, Mason S, Kennerley M. Assessing energy within organizations. Measuring Business Excellence. 2007;11(3):69-78. [DOI:10.1108/13683040710820764]
36. Fritz C, Lam CF, Spreitzer GM. It's the little things that matter: An examination of knowledge workers' energy management. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 2011; 25(3): 28-39. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2011.63886528 [DOI:10.5465/amp.25.3.zol28]
37. Peñalver J, Salanova M, Martínez IM, Schaufeli WB. Happy-productive groups: How positive affect links to performance through social resources. Journal Positive Psychol. 2019;14(3):377-92. [DOI:10.1080/17439760.2017.1402076]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2015 All Rights Reserved | Iran Journal of Nursing

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb