Achievement motivation in working among community committee of khetudomsak sub-district municipality, sattahipsub-district, amphoe sattahip, chon buri province
Abstract:
The purposes of this study were to examine and compare a level of achievement motivation in working among community committee of Khet-udomsakSub-district Municipality, Sattahip Sub-district, Amphoe Sattahip, Chon Buri Province. The population participating in this study was 124 community committees who belonged to 13 communities. The instrument used to collect the data was a questionnaire on achievement motivation. It comprised on three close-ended questions which included the ones in relation to the needs for achievement, commitment, and power, and one open-ended question. To analyze the collected data, a computer data processing program was administered. Also, the descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, percentage, means, and standard deviation, was employed to analyze the data. To compare the differences in the level of achievement motivation in working as classified by the subjects gender, age, educational level, occupation, and amount of income, the tests of t-test and One-way ANOVA were administered. The results of this study revealed that the subjects rated the level of achievement motivation in working in terms of the needs for commitment at the highest ( = 3.41). When considering each aspect, the one in relation to the needs for advancing their communities was rated the highest ( = 3.55), followed by the needs for achievement ( = 3.29). Specifically, the community committee expressed their needs for exchanging knowledge among communities for the purpose of developing their own communities ( = 3.40), and the needs for power ( = 2.57). Furthermore, it was shown that, being the community committees, the subjects were better known by the local people ( = 3.18). Finally, based on the results from the comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences in the level of achievement motivation in working among the community committees with different gender, age, education, occupation, and amount of income. Thus, the research hypotheses were rejected.