A model for promoting motivation in educational institutions

Document Type : Mixed Method Research Paper


1 دانشجوی دکتری، رشته مدیریت آموزشی، گروه مدیریت آموزشی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت آموزش عالی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

3 استادگروه مدیریت آموزش ، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

4 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساوه، ساوه، ایران


This study has been conducted aimed at presentation of a model for promotion of the motivation of the professors of Farhangian University. To this end, we have taken advantage of the mixed research methods. In the qualitative stage, the statistical population composed of 25 scientific and executive experts of the university who were selected using purposive sampling method. In the quantitative stage, the research method was descriptive and the statistical population included all professors of Farhangian Universities across the country equal to 784 subjects that among them , 278 professors were selected based on the cluster sampling method. Analysis of qualitative data was conducted through t-test, MAXQDA software and exploratory factor analysis. Also for the validation of the proposed models, structural equations and PLS approach were used. For data collection in qualitative stage, we have used the structured interview and in quantitative stage, we provided a researcher-made questionnaire. In qualitative stage, the results showed that the aspects and factors of motivation including nature of the job with three constituents of autonomy, significance of the job and Job attractiveness; professional progress with 2 constituents of interest in development and tendency towards research; need for success with 2 constituents of organizational commitment and self-efficacy; and social status with 2 constituents of knowledge and gratitude and finally social respect and effective factors in the form of economic factors including constituents of payment and reward system ; cultural factors including constituents of communications , participation and team work ; environmental factors including constituents of technology , work conditions and organizational health; management factors including spiritual and evolutionary leadership and legal factors including the policies of Education Office and ministry of Sciences were identified. The results of exploratory factor analysis revealed 4 dimensions of motivation explain almost 82.87 percent and 5 factors account for 78.96 percent of variance of motivation of the professors. The confirmatory factor analysis results showed that all factor loads of dimensions, factors and effective constituents are higher than 0.70. Then, the elements of the model are appropriate and have evaluated the indices and structures well. Moreover, the values of indices of fit of AGFI and CFI models are higher than 0.80 and this is an expression of good fit of the model. The results of the role of each dimension of motivation showed that the interest in acquisition of success with the highest share of %82, nature of job with %81, professional progress %77 and social status %60 account for the motivation of the professors. As to the factors of the value of R2 (0.55) we know that there is a strong explanation of the motivation by the factors. Likewise, the evaluation of t shows the strong relationship between management, cultural and environmental factors. In our evaluation of the status quo other factors except for social respect stand in higher positions than the mean. However the gap between the status quo and desirable status in all four dimensions is significant. In the section of factors, other factors but economic and legal factors and evolutionary leadership have been assessed to be in desirable a situation. Nevertheless, the gap between the status quo and desirable situation in all factors is significant. Degree of fit of model in 8 domains of philosophy, goals, theoretical foundations, dimensions and constituents, effective factors, executive mechanisms, promotion mechanisms and feedback and revision system and renewed engineering has been evaluated by the experts. The results showed that all criteria of assessment of fit are of an average higher than the mean, i.e. 3, and this is an expression of the high validity of the model from the perspective of the fit criteria.
In general, the results of the research showed that professors are interested in their profession, and teaching is attractive to them and is of great importance and they are proud of it.  Therefore, it can be argued that if professors have the necessary power to make decisions in the work process, they will feel responsible for the results of their work, and this will motivate them. Therefore, accordingly the researcher believes, autonomy in the university is a very important and key component because the originality and dynamism of the university activities require a flexible, free and democratic atmosphere and is one of the supporting principles of faculty members. Academic freedom is one of the principles of support according to which faculty members in a healthy society should have the natural right to freely exchange ideas and express theories in the classroom, to conduct research freely and to publish its results, and to make specialized comments on scientific topics. And the university must respect these rights. Due to the nature of the university's educational and research activities in creating new scientific ideas, especially Farhangian University, which is supposed to train thoughtful teachers, scientific freedom is absolutely necessary. But as we have seen in the results of research, sometimes the political demands and restrictions prevailing in the scientific fields as a deterrent to academic activities overshadow and the rule of political thoughts and specific groups and factional prejudices prevent freedom of thought and free criticism and analysis of ideas and views.
The results also indicate the greater importance of professors to cultural, environmental and managerial factors. When professors actively participate in the decisions making and have good relationships with colleagues and superiors and students, and there is a culture of partnership and teamwork at the university, professors feel committed to what they are doing, and these factors influence their motivation. The results of this study also show that there is a relationship between environmental factors such as physical and supportive environment, career and educational promotion, justice and equality and the existence of technology and educational facilities and motivation. This study has shown that the type of university leadership also plays a key role in motivating faculty members. Because, the university is faced with grown-up faculty who are not motivated by meeting basic needs. Rather, they want to work meaningfully, purposefully, and create a work environment to nurture their creativity and talents. Therefore, in order to motivate them, one must seek to meet the transcendent needs.


Bahadori, M.K., Babaei, M., & Mehrabian, F. (2012). "Effective Prioritization of Job Motivation in Staff of a Military Center by Analytical Hierarchy Process". Journal of Military Medicine, 14 (4): 243-236. [in Persian].
Burgess, B. L. (2016). “Understanding the Desire to Learn: A Study of Academic Intrinsic Motivation in Students Attending a 4-Year Institution for Higher Learning” (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University).
Claudia, V. (2015). The role of motivation in the development of school teachers ‘career. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1109-1115.
Feizi, T., Geramipour, Masoud., & Shahaie, B. (2012). “Identifying the Motivational Factors of Faculty Members in Payame Noor University of Tehran. Public Administration”, Volume 4, (4) ,88 -73. [in Persian].
Francois, E. J. (2010). Motivational factors and worldview dimensions associated with perceptions of global education initiatives by US college professors. University of South Florida.
Gagné, M. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Oxford University Press, USA.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., & Halvari, H. (2015). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178-196.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2012). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour. 6th edition. Reading, MA: Prentice Hall.
Ghourchian, N. G., & Salehi, M. (2004). Designing a Model for Instituting Future Research at Islamic Azad University. Knowledge and Research in Educational Sciences. 2, 22-2.
Haskas, Y. (2016). Competency-Based Achievement: Case study on Lecturer of Health Sciences Colleges in South Sulawesi. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 517-517.
Hanaysha, J. (2016). Determinants of job satisfaction in higher education sector: Empirical insights from Malaysia. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 6(1), 129-146.
Howard, J., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J., & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation profiles at work: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95, 74-89.
Hosseinian Heidari, F.S. (2013). Evaluation of teachers' professional and practical skills from the perspective of principals, teachers and students. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Counseling, 5 (14). 147-134. [in Persian].
Jeswani, S. (2016). Do intrinsic motivation influence turnover intention? Structural equation modelling approach among technical faculty members. International Journal of Business and General Managemenet, special edition November 2016, 1-20.
Jusmin, A., Said, S., Bima, M. J., & Alam, R. (2016). Specific determinants of work motivation, competence, organizational climate, job satisfaction and individual performance: A study among lecturers. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 4(3), 53-59.
Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3),338.
Kanfer, R., & Chen, G. (2016). Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 6-19.
Maleknia, E. (2016). The Role and Position of Higher Education System in Economic Development. National Iranian Higher Education Congress. [in Persian].
Osakwe, R. N. (2014). Factors Affecting Motivation and Job Satisfaction of Academic Staff of Universities in South-South Geopolitical Zone of Nigeria. International Education Studies, 7(7), 43-51.
Parashar, B. K. (2016). Significance of theory Z in indian scenario. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN, 2319, 8-16.
Ryan,  R.  M.,  &  Deci,  E.  L.  (2017).  Self-determination  theory:  Basic psychological  needs  in  motivation,  development,  and  wellness.  Guilford Publications.
Stupnisky,  R.  H.,  BrckaLorenz,  A.,  Yuhas,  B.,  &  Guay,  F.  (2018).  Faculty members’  motivation  for  teaching  and  best  practices:  Testing  a  model  based  on self-determination  theory  across  institution  types.  Contemporary  Educational Psychology,  53, 15-26.
Harjanti,  W.  (2016).  Role  of  Religion:  Implications  of  Personal  Value  and Corporate  Culture  on  the  Lecturer  Job  Satisfaction.  Archives  of  Business Research,  4(3).
Svodziwa,  M.,  Kurete,  F.,  &  Gwangwara,  E.  (2016).  Motivational  Issues  for Lecturers  in  Tertiary  Institutions:  A  Case  of  Bulawayo  Polytechnic   .  International Journal  of  Scientific and Research Publications, 6)  4(,167-175.
Yang,  Z.,  Zhang,  H.,  Kwan,  H.  K.,  &  Chen,  S.  (2018).  Crossover  effects  of servant  leadership  and  job  social  support  on  employee  spouses:  The  mediating role  of  employee  organization-based  self-esteem.  Journal  of  Business Ethics,  147(3),  595-604.
Zakeri,  A.  (2011).  “Investigating  the  Relationship  between  Spiritual  Leadership Components  and  Job  Motivation  of  Faculty  Members”.  Shahid  Beheshti University  of  Tehran.  [in  Persian].
Volume 8, Issue 2
May 2020
Pages 370-344
  • Receive Date: 07 February 2020
  • Revise Date: 06 May 2020
  • Accept Date: 12 June 2020
  • First Publish Date: 21 June 2020