(Continuation from the last issue of Art)
Part II Empirical research
The second part of the book is not in the least connected to the first, with which, admittedly, as it is, nothing can be connected in a meaningful and logical way. The only connection between them is that neither the first nor the second part contains anything about achievement motivation. There are therefore no other connections, and it may be that for this reason the second part turned out to be much better than the first. It presents data that were obtained, using 19 questionnaires, from a group of 717 respondents employed in 32 work organizations in Montenegro. And although it is limited, this data, of course, has its value. But that does not mean at all that everything is fine with this part of the book and that there is no work for the critic. There is, by God, certainly one, starting from the first chapter, even its title.
1. The title of the first chapter is “Distribution attitude towards achievement motivation in the organization” (underlined by MS). What is wrong here? The expression “attitude about achievement motivation in the organization” is wrong. Why? Because “MOP” is a professional term, a variable, a problem, and a field of research in psychology as a science. For this reason, the subjects of this empirical research, 717 employees of “organizations”, can hardly have knowledge about MOP, as implied by the term attitude, or, like our authors-researchers, they do not have it at all. In any case, the psychologist-researcher cannot expect it from them, so examining their attitude about it is an empty and superfluous thing: “attitude about MOP” is, in this case, another list change i.e. a logical error on which, as on some deviant tendency, our authors consistently build their work. To be precise, this expression confuses the respondents and the examiners, or even more precisely, confuses the old women and the frogs.
“An attitude towards MOP” (to clarify this a little further) can be held by professional psychologists or psychology students, since, to repeat, “MOP” is one, among others, of the professional terms of their profession. In addition, the cognitive/knowledge component of their attitude (such as knowledge about MOP) can be very rich, mediocre or very small, even (as is the case with our author-researchers) it can be at the very minimum, not to say at absolute zero, but, in any case, we can examine such an attitude with valid reasons - psychologists are, simply, a relevant population in this matter. And we will conduct such an examination - reconstruction of the attitude towards MOP a little later with our author-researchers-psychologists: such an examination-reconstruction falls within the domain of the psychology of science (take it: Maslow, A., “Psychology of Science”; 1966.; Glades, M. “Personal knohledge”, 1958.) and, not only is it legitimate, but, in some cases, such as this one, it is also an unavoidable intervention. Researchers, to summarize, must be interested here MOP code for employees, and no employees' attitude towards MOP, and therefore, neither does the “distribution of attitudes towards MOP in the organization”.
Now, let's first see what was examined here and, then, what was and was not determined in this empirical research.
Elem, u first chapter Three variables are monitored:
a) “perception of demotivating behavioral models” - this variable is treated as the “cognitive component of the attitude towards MOP”;
b) “satisfaction with phenomena in the organization and society” - this variable is treated as the “affective component of the attitude towards MOP”;
c) “willingness to engage in the organization” - this variable is treated as a “conative component of the attitude towards MOP”.
Then, these three variables (a, b, c) are interconnected using percentages and chi-squares, and based on this, we speak of the "connection of the components of the attitude towards MOP", we are therefore talking about the components of the attitude that are not being examined - while what is being examined here, through the said three components, can be called "the attitude of employees towards the work they do and towards the work organization in which they do that work"I draw the attention of the authors-researchers that what I have underlined was the subject of their research, in this part of it.
With the evidence presented in the book, it was found that the cognitive, affective and conative components of this attitude are linked, so that it can be seen that the more employees perceive demotivating factors, the less satisfied they are and the less willing they are to “engage”. This finding, of course, had to be expected, and it is not a breakthrough, but, in itself, it indirectly suggests the possible validity of other findings. We also emphasize this in order to help our authors-researchers better understand their research and their book. In doing so, we must still take into account that the data obtained do not prove anything about MOP.
2. That MOP was not examined at all in this research (although the authors write that it was) is also shown by the factor analysis, the results of which are reported in the second chapter. "Latent structure of motivation and perceived demotivating patterns of behavior in organizations".
The first section of this chapter wants to tell us what “latent factors of achievement motivation” are. This is a factor analysis that was conducted on data from a questionnaire called the “Scale for Examining Respondents’ General Readiness to Engage at Work,” so in the previous chapter the variable that is operationalized in this questionnaire was called “readiness to engage in the organization” and it was treated as a conative component of “attitude towards MOP.” (Factor analysis is a method by which, behind what is manifest and closer to our experience, we search for and find what is fundamental and therefore latent: thus, behind empirically obtained correlations, using this method, we obtain factors that we believe to have a causal effect on the occurrence of these correlations.) In this section, however, we do not know why, the same thing is called “achievement motivation,” although, by definition, as we will see, it is not achievement motivation. Well, the factor analysis extracts two factors: the second factor is labeled “responsible behavior at work”, it explains 14,5% of the total variance and this factor can be brought into a certain relationship with MOP - however, this factor can only be brought into such a relationship under the condition that the first factor also really concerns MOP. The first factor, however, which explains 29,0% of the total variance, is called “employment as an instrument of survival" and this factor, according to what is known from theory and research practice, has nothing to do with MOP. The very definition of MOP that we are now citing shows us that it does not, with advice to our authors-researchers to read it several times and thus make radical progress in understanding this matter:
“Achieving something that is difficult. To manage, manipulate, or organize physical objects, human beings, or ideas. To do so as quickly and independently as possible. To overcome obstacles and achieve high quality. To excel. To compete with and surpass others. To increase self-esteem through the successful use of talent” (Where, K. i Lidzi, G.: “Personality Theories”, ch. 6). That's the definition. Is there anything in it about "survival" or about "an instrument of survival" or, rather, about "employment as an instrument of survival"? There is none. Therefore, the first and strongest "latent factor of achievement motivation", as our authors-researchers call it has nothing (but, absolutely nothing!) to do with achievement motivation. But it has to do with comic effects. It is comical, indeed, if, as in this case, one obtains empirical evidence that empirical research, neither at the "manifest" nor the "latent" level does it really investigate what it supposedly investigates. It's also comical that the researchers - the authors don't see it. And then they don't see that it's comical. That's why we say that this is a comedy that needs help understanding itself.
In the second section (chapter two), again as a result of factor analysis, three “latent factors of perceived demotivating behavioral patterns in organizations” were defined. These factors (1. “perception that employees are treated as incompetent and irresponsible performers” 2. “distrust in work as a criterion of status at work” 3. “resistance to the rule of egalitarian tendencies”) were extracted from a questionnaire called “Scale for “measuring” general attitudes about organizational and personal factors that negatively affect work motivation”. Leaving everything else aside, we must now recall that in the previous (first) chapter, in addition to this “scale for “measuring”…”, four more “instruments” were presented concerning “perception of demotivating behavioral patterns in organizations” (as the first section of the first chapter is called) - and, here, then, the question of why, when performing the factor analysis, these four “instruments” were forgotten? I believe that with the qualification "turbo-folk science" we have the answer (to this question as well) since it explains the unacceptable arbitrariness, the absence of theoretical and methodological concentration, as well as the various deviations of (authorial and research) memory that we constantly encounter in this book.
(Continued in the next issue)
Bonus video:
