Achievement, affiliation, power and academic performance of business management students of a state university in Cavite, Philippines

Abstract

Business management is a priority course in most universities given the thrust to develop entrepreneurs. Motivational profile of business management students in a state university in Cavite, Philippines was assessed and analyzed its relation to their academic performance. Achievement, affiliation and power based on McClelland’s theory (1960), were compared across sex groupings and determined the most dominant motivation per year level. Cochran’s sample size with .05 alpha level was used to obtain a total of 311 participants, descriptive statistics (mean, percentage, frequency count) and correlational analysis (Pearson r correlation and t-test) were used in analyzing the data. Outcomes show a substantial relationship between achievement motivation and students’ academic performance. Most participants are females, junior level and have very good academic performance. Results show a dominant motivational profile in the desire to achieve, followed by affiliation, lastly, power. Achievement motivation is highest for freshmen, juniors are affiliation-oriented and seniors are power-motivated. There is no significant difference between sex and motivational profiles, there is a weak negative correlation between achievement motivational profile and academic performance, no significant difference between affiliation and power motivational profiles and academic performance. Results imply that while studies show a positive correlation between motivational profiles and academic performance, other factors that may define academic performance, like teaching methodologies, can be maximized by schools. As student’s motivation shifts from achievement to affiliation to power, teachers may ensure that students have a healthy combination of activities that foster a sense of achievement, good interpersonal relationships, collaboration and healthy competition.

Keywords:

• achievement motivation
• affiliation motivation
• power motivation
• academic performance and McClelland theory of motivation

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Motivation is an important factor that explains performance. In this study, the achievement, affiliation and power motivation of business management students in a state university in Cavite, Philippines, were examined in relation to their academic performance. In its bid to spur rural development, the business management course intends to develop entrepreneurs who have what it takes to establish sustainable businesses. Thus, determining the motivational factors of these students is important as running a business requires a good balance of achievement, affiliation and power motivation. Teachers can then determine the interventions to enhance the motivational factors that may be weak among the students and further enhance those that are dominant. Given the low scores in power motivation, the teachers could promote more academic and non-academic activities that require leadership roles to challenge the students to think of innovative solutions to problematic situations.

1. Introduction

The importance of motivation to the learning process was documented by Gopalan et al. (2017) as a person’s achievement and ambitions are embedded in his motivation. The authors emphasized the relevance of motivation in a student’s success, particularly in the field of education, for it serves as an enabler and driving force that allows students to overcome challenges in life. However, teachers have pivotal role in creating a conducive climate that will spur a positive attitude and facilitate students’ success. Thus, improved collaboration and communication between students and teachers are two important motivational factors in the learning process (Vero & Puka, 2017). Research by Amrai et al. (2011) demonstrated a significant relationship between motivation and student academic achievements. Furthermore, research by Gbollie and Keamu (2017) focused on several variables including motivational beliefs, learning strategy, and academic performance.

Primarily, this research focuses on the dominant motivational profile of business management students in a state university in Cavite, Philippines and how this profile affects their academic performance. In addition, the motivational profiles were compared across sex groupings and the most dominant motivational drive per year level was determined.

This study explains that motivational drives are dynamic and change based on the situation faced by students. Contrary to beliefs that motivational drives are static and constant, students’ motivational drives constantly shift based on their assessment of their conditions. For freshmen full of hope, the desire to achieve and excel is dominant. Even if they have started with positive energy, they go through a stage of demotivation wherein, during their sophomore years, they experience burnout in their academic endeavors. This explains the low motivation profile of second-year students as revealed in the study. By the time they reach their junior years, the realization that they are more than halfway through their program makes them more interested in creating good relationships with their classmates. Finally, seniors, who are about to enter the workforce, develop confidence and a desire to influence others. Their desire to control and take charge is consistent with the fact that they want to become independent in preparation for their career as future professionals.

2. Literature review

2.1. Motivation and motivational drives

Effective motivation is heavily reliant on a thorough understanding of each individual’s personality, value system, and needs. David McClelland classified motivational needs into three categories: achievement, affiliation, and power. The achievement need refers to the longing to accomplish difficult and interesting tasks excellently. People who have high achievement motivation like working by themselves, making their own decisions, setting realistic goals and challenges, and working under close supervision. The study by Raeisi et al. (2012) highlighted an individual’s communication needs, success, and power. Likewise, a more recent study by Subathra (2017) focused on achievement motivation, or the need for achievement. Their study revealed that the participants scored higher in terms of their intensity for achievement motivation, followed by the affiliation motivation. Affiliation needs, on the other hand, are concerned with the establishment and maintenance of good interpersonal relations. Students motivated by affiliation prefer to work on creating harmonious relationships in groups rather than assuming leadership roles (Martincová et al., 2016). Those who have high affiliation motivation are always seeking the company of others and are interactive. Conversely, the need for influence and power pertains to an individual’s preference to control and command others (Uduji & Ankeli, 2013). People with high power motivation tend to be firm, persuasive, and like to act as a representative or spokesman (Trainer, 2007). Sikora (2011) found that leaders who have a high need for affiliation are less effective compared to those who have a high need for power.

The study of Johnstone (1995) provided a comparative analysis of the need for power and affiliation as observed in undergraduate students. Results revealed that business students obtained higher scores on McClelland’s leadership motive pattern (LMP) than education or social work students. Social work students, in turn, have higher scores in questions pertaining to the need for affiliation. Further, the study revealed that Machiavellianism has a positive correlation with the need for power and a negative correlation with the need for affiliation and achievement.

Highlights of the study by Johnston (2016) emphasized that people are motivated mainly by the passion for knowledge and the quest for meaning. Material incentives and the desire for influence have low importance. Ramírez et al. (2016) also found out that new students give great importance to knowledge, i.e., new learning, study skills improvement, conduct of research, better job apprenticeship and learning interest. This is confirmed by the study of Rohs et al. (2002), who have similar findings.

2.2. Factors affecting motivational drives and academic performance

The need for power is negatively correlated with age; older people were reported to have a lower need for power (Johnstone, 1995). Contrariwise, Subathra (2017) pointed out that there is no connection between a person’s need profile and age. Sheard (2009) claimed that older students perform better than their younger counterparts. In contrast, Pellizzari and Billari (2012) have proven that younger students perform better. Raeisi et al. (2012) confirmed that the priority pattern of motivational needs of males and females has no difference. However, Johnstone (1995) contested, that males have a higher need for power than females. He further added that males exhibited a lower need for affiliation compared to females. Similarly, the study by Jooste and Hamani (2017) emphasized the significant difference in the need for power between males and females. They discovered that women have less desire to gain power than men. It is also supported by Subathra (2017), who stated that sex has a significant relationship to the motivation profile. It was established that females have higher academic performance than males.

Moreover, significant variations in the general point average (GPA) among students in the business management program were found (Khwaileh & Zaza, 2008). Studies by Thiele et al. (2016), Roy and Chadalawada (2014), and Sheard (2009) confirmed that female students outperform male students. Likewise, the study of Hamza et al. (2018) emphasized that gender and learning were significantly related. Specifically, Edgar (2015) pointed out that males tend to have lower ratings in planning, task management, and perseverance.

2.3. Motivational drives and academic performance

Koshal et al. (2004) hypothesized that a lot of factors associated with students and the school affect academic performance. De Castro et al. (2016) explain that there is an association between motivation, commitment, performance, and reward. Further, Ankli and Palliam (2012) cited the need to examine motivation because it has not consistently proven to be a predictor of performance. Daneshfard and Darabpour (2015) studied the effect of motivational factors on productivity and found no relationship between the need for influence and productivity. However, a positive relationship was found between the need for affiliation and productivity. Woolf et al. (2012) suggest that affiliation motivation affects, for example, learning because alliances may influence learning. Furthermore, Pang and Schultheiss (2005) proved that females have higher affiliation motivation than males. The study by Fini and Yousefzadeh (2011) claimed that achievement motivation is positively correlated to high educational achievement as students who manifest high achievement motivation have higher chances of excelling in academics. Ikpaahindi (2001) backs up this notion, noting that there is a positive but weak link between the desire for success and efficiency. Davids (2015) indicated in his study, that students aspiring for excellence possess higher achievement needs. They are inclined to set challenging goals compared to those who have lower achievement motivation.

3. Theoretical and conceptual framework

Several studies on motivation and academic performance and achievement have been investigated and analyzed, utilizing various theoretical conceptions of motivation, such as McClelland’s theory. In their study of students’ gender, race, and the relationship between needs motivation and academic performance, Hii and Surat (2021) found that needs motivation had an impact on students’ academic performance. Meanwhile, Smith (2015) discussed and criticized the practice of measuring achievement motivation, as well as introducing the CAMS (Contextual Achievement Motivation Survey), which is based on McClelland’s theory of accomplishment motivation and serves as a measurement of one’s achievement thoughts and behaviors in a variety of contexts, including school, work, and so on. Based on McClelland’s theory, Goodman et al. (2011) looked at the motivational needs of university students and their academic accomplishments. The goal of the study is to contribute to the body of information on motivation, effort, and academic success, focusing on higher level institutions in South Africa, where they discovered that inward motivation is the biggest determinant of academic achievement, followed by effort. In addition, Ziegler et al. (2010) discovered evidence for the result that several precise indicators based on distinct conceptualized theory form on one construct when examining the achievement motivation of university undergraduate students. Furthermore, Steinmayr and Spinath (2009) showed the significance of motivation in educational environments to the prediction of students’ accomplishments based on numerous theoretical notions, such as the McClelland theory of motivation.

This research work is anchored on the motivation theory of David McClelland. Motivational drives are deep desires for something as a result of the cultural orientation to which individuals belong. The way people approach their lives or view their tasks is affected by these drives. Theory of motivational drives of McClelland is divided into three categories, namely: achievement, affiliation, and power motivation. People with a strong desire to succeed are stimulated by challenging goals. They thrive better alone than in teams because of their desire to assume personal responsibility for tasks. They are highly competitive and have a strong need for feedback on their performance. On the other hand, a person who is driven by a desire to belong is more concerned with socialization and has a strong desire for a sense of belongingness. Lastly, the need for power is a drive to influence, take control, and change conditions. Power-motivated people wish to create an impact on the environment in which they belong and are open to taking risks to do so (Newstrom, 2011).

The framework of the study is shown in figure 1. Sex grouping was related to the motivational profile, while the motivational profile was related to the academic performance of the business management students.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

This study presents the following hypotheses..

H_o 1: There is no significant difference on the motivational profile of students’ participants across sex groupings.

H_o 2: There is no significant relationship between the motivational profile of business

management students and their academic performance:

2.1: Need for achievement and students’ grade point average (GPA)

2.2: Need for affiliation and students’ grade point average (GPA)

2.3: Need for power and students’ grade point average (GPA)

The following terms were defined for better understanding and analysis:

Motivational profile. This refers to David McClelland’s theory of Motivation – achievement, affiliation and power motivational profiles. In this study, a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest was used to measure motivational need profiles of the business management students.

Achievement need. This refers to the longing to accomplish responsibility/activities well, in order to excel.

Affiliation need. It is concerned with the establishment and maintenance of good interpersonal relations.

Need for power. This pertains to an individual’s preference to control and command others.

Academic performance. It is based on the grading system of the university with the following adjective rating, as shown in table 1.

Table 1. Grading system

Grade Point Average (GPA)	Qualitative Equivalent
1.0–1.49	Excellent
1.50–1.99	very good
2.00–2.49	Good
2.5–2.99	Satisfactory
3.00	Passing

Business management students. These are the students enrolled in a state university during the time the study was conducted. They must have completed at least one semester and be aware of their GPA to be qualified as a participant in the survey.

Year levels. These are the different categories of students (at the tertiary level) classified as first-year students for those who have enrolled in the first two semesters, second-year students for those who have enrolled in their 3^rd and 4^th semesters, third⁻year students for those who have enrolled in their 5^th and 6^th semesters, and fourth-year students for those who have enrolled in their 7^th and 8^th semesters.

4. Methodology

The study used a descriptive and correlational research method. A letter requesting consent to gather data was sent to the department chairperson and college dean. Also, a letter was provided to the college registrar requesting the list of the enrolled students as well as their GPA in the semester prior to the conduct of the study. Students were told of the intent of the study before the actual distribution of the questionnaires. They were also asked to give their consent by filling in the consent form along with the research instrument. Students who did not want to take part in the study were not given a questionnaire. Data gathering commenced after the development and evaluation of the research instrument. The total population of business management students covered all fields of specialization—service management program (SMP), financial management (FM), business economics (BE), marketing management (MM), human resource development management (HRDM), and operations management (OM)—as well as those enrolled in the general academics’ curriculum (first-year and second-year students). Cochran’s sample size formula was used to compute the number of participants for the study. An alpha level a priori of.05 was considered. A total of 311 participants were distributed across year levels—11.96% from the first- year; 12.45% from the second-year; 41.63% from the third-year; and 43.96% from the fourth-year. A proportionate random sampling method was used, wherein all members of the population had an equal opportunity to be represented.

The research instrument was adapted from the works of Steers and Braunstein (1976), which was constructed based on David McClelland motivation theory. The same theory was utilized as the basis for the questionnaire in the studies of Jooste and Hamani (2017), Uduji and Ankeli (2013), Daneshfard (2015), and Subathra (2017). Further, modifications were done for it to be applicable and understandable by students while at the same time addressing the aims of this research. The validity of the instrument was insured by a thorough literature review, from which the instrument was modified. Face validity was ensured by asking five experts in the areas of business management and human resource management to evaluate the instrument. The questionnaire has 15 statements wherein each motivational drive was represented by 5 questions each—Nos. 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 for Achievement; Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 for Power; and Nos. 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 for Affiliation. It was later subjected to a reliability test through pilot testing and the computation of the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. An Alpha coefficient of 0.84 was obtained. Data was examined using descriptive statistics like mean, percentage, and frequency count, as well as correlational analysis with Pearson’s r correlation and the t-test. Moreover, a statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 13 was used.

Table 2 shows that a large number of the participants were third-year (129 participants), followed by fourth-year students (106 participants). There were 39 second-year students and 37 first-year students who also formed part of the participants.

Table 2. Distribution of the participants

YEAR LEVEL	POPULATION	SAMPLE SIZE
1^st	198	37
2^nd	206	39
3^rd	689	129
4^th	562	106
TOTAL	1,655	311

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Demographic profile and academic performance of the participants

Table 3 shows that the majority of the participants (66%) are females. It implies that the majority of those taking business management courses are females, which comprises 2/3rds of the total number of participants. Seventy-six percent of the participants belong to the age group of 17 to 21 years old. This is followed by those who are 21 to 24 (21%), and those whose age ranges from 25 to 28 (3%), and no response (1%). The majority of the participants are in their early 20ʹs. Moreover, most (97%) of the students are single, full-time students, and 2% did not respond regarding their civil status. Only 1% indicated a married status, which is not typical of a college student in the Philippines. Further, the result shows that more than half (54%) of the participants had a general point average of between 1.50–1.99 with an adjectival rating of very good. It is followed by a GPA of between 2.00–2.49 (33%), with an adjectival rating of good. Only 8% of the participants are performing at an exceptional level with a GPA of between 1.00–1.49, while 4% are performing at a satisfactory level with a GPA of between 2.5–2.99. The remaining 1% passed with a GPA of 3.00. The results revealed that BM students are average to above average academic performers. They are able to deliver what is expected of them, but only a few go out of their way to perform exceptionally in their academics.

Table 3. Demographic profile and academic performance of the participants

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE	FREQUENCY (n = 311)	PERCENTAGE (%)
Sex male business management students female business management students	106 205	34 66
Age in years 17–20 21-24 25–28 29 and above	235 66 8 2	76 21 3 1
civil status single married no response	302 3 6	97 1 2
Grade Point Average (GPA) 1.00–1.49 (excellent) 1.50–1.99 (very good) 2.00–2.49 (good) 2.50–2.99 (satisfactory) 3.00-(passing)	27 169 102 11 2	8 54 33 4 1

5.2. Dominant motivational profile of the participants

Table 4 shows that the most prevalent motivational profile of the business management students is achievement motivation, with a weighted mean of 3.238, followed closely by the need to affiliate, with a weighted mean of 3.017, while the need for power is the lowest motivational source profile of the participants. This shows that students are more concerned about their academic performance and affiliation, which is why affiliation is also important to them because having a network is necessary to thrive in the academe. On the other hand, primarily because of the desire to belong and be liked, students may have suppressed asserting control over situations and people, which is what power motivation is all about.

Table 4. Dominant motivational profile among business management students

MOTIVATIONAL PROFILE	MEAN	SD	RANK
Achievement	3.238	0.405	1
Affiliation	3.017	0.417	2
Power	2.818	0.424	3

Rohs et al. (2002) contended that achievement need is higher than the power or affiliation need among students. In addition, a more recent study by Subathra (2017) revealed that the participants scored higher in terms of their intensity for achievement motivation followed by the affiliation motivation. This means that the majority of the participants’ exhibit characteristics such as: they like working by themselves, making their own decisions, setting realistic goals or challenges, and working under close supervision, which was mentioned by Trainer (2007).

5.3. Most dominant motivational profile according to year levels

Mean scores were used to compare the motivational profiles of the participants when clustered by year level. Table 5, presents that first-year students are driven by achievement, as shown by the mean of 3.319. This indicates that freshmen are idealistic, industrious, and highly motivated to perform well. This can be explained by the fact that they need to prove themselves since they are new entrants at the tertiary level. Furthermore, they are open to new ideas and new learning experiences.

Table 5. Most dominant motivational profile according to year levels

MOTIVATIONAL PROFILE	YEAR LEVEL	MEAN	SD	RANK
Achievement	1 2 3 4 Total	3.319 3.128 3.250 3.236 3.238	0.370 0.332 0.383 0.459 0.405	1 4 2 3
Affiliation	1 2 3 4 Total	2.957 2.974 3.045 3.021 3.017	0.389 0.393 0.391 0.466 0.417	4 3 1 2
Power	1 2 3 4 Total	2.778 2.764 2.812 2.858 2.818	0.431 0.372 0.429 0.434 0.424	3 4 2 1

Year Level: 1: first-year/freshmen students;

2: second-year/sophomore students;

3: third-year/junior students; 4: fourth-year/sophomore students

This conforms to the study by Johnston (2016) that highlighted the notion that people are essentially motivated by a quest for knowledge and a search for meaning. Moreover, the same study pointed out that material achievement and the need for power have low significance. Rohs et al. (2002) stated the same findings. They have confirmed that the students’ need for achievement is higher than their power or affiliation need. The achievement need has been a part of child rearing as early as the primary years of a child’s life. Children are expected to behave according to certain standards and parents reward them tangibly or intangibly, such as warmth, affection, or words of affirmation. Children grow with the cognition that success has value and that they need to improve and perform well up to a certain level of excellence (Kaplan, 2008). Taking the social cognitive perspective, the motivation of students manifests in certain situations. The classic theory of McLelland’s motivation contends that students’ drive is conceived as a constant attribute. These attributes are carried on as they pursue formal education. Hence, achievement driven students expect success and dread failure (Steinmayr et al., 2019). Accordingly, the need for achievement is measured in terms of dread or pleasure in affective experiences. Further, the study of Moore et al. (2010) states that freshmen participating in voluntary organizations exhibit a need for achievement and even a need for affiliation. The need to strengthen leadership skills, knowledge and capacity are primary drivers for joining this community.

The results further show that second-year students have a low motivational profile. The reason for this is that subjects during the sophomore years are said to be difficult, and the majority of them include computations and analysis (calculus, accounting, quantitative analysis, statistics, etc.). This is the period where students start to feel the burden of college life as reflected in their curriculum. This is confirmed in the study of Dişlen (2013), wherein he contended that students are unmotivated when they are loaded with so many tasks, when there are uninteresting and dull lessons, difficulty in understanding, and multiple monotonous activities.

On the other hand, third-year students are driven by affiliation, as shown by a mean of 3.045. This can be explained by the fact that they have already overcome the difficulties of college life and have already adjusted and become comfortable with their environment. This year level starts to become more acquainted with their classmates/schoolmates, actively join course organizations, and involve themselves in different social activities within the university. In this way, they prepare themselves for their on-the-job training adjustment during the summer. Also, their need for affiliation drive is evident because in the succeeding semesters they will be taking thesis writing and entrepreneurial development projects (EDP), so it is crucial to know and be acquainted with their prospective partners in the said endeavors. This is in relation to the study of Uduji and Ankeli (2013) that found that the need for affiliation is concerned with the establishment and maintenance of good interpersonal relations. The results are similar to those of Saeed and Zyngier (2012), in which they stated that students who value learning exert their best efforts to acquire what the school offers. They are proud not only because they succeeded, but rather because they understand that investing in education will benefit them in life. Engaged learners are involved in the learning process, they persist even in rough times, they interact well with other students, impart knowledge to others, and they creatively solve problems together. A person’s essential needs, such as the need to compete, the need to relate, and the need for independence, are an innate characteristic and are context specific. The sense of security or belongingness and the desire to follow rules and norms are basic among students for their well-being. (Koca, 2016).

Moreover, seniors are driven by power, as shown by the mean score of 2.858. This is the result of their struggle for the last three years, and they have already built self-confidence. Their desire to control and take charge is consistent with the fact that they want to become independent in preparation for their future career as professionals. This is contrary to the findings of Johnstone (1995), who said that age is inversely correlated with the need for power since older individuals exhibit a lower need for power. Further, the study of Subathra (2017) pointed out that there is no substantial relationship between an individual’s motivational profile and age. Sheard (2009) claimed that mature-age students have better performance than their younger counterparts. Contrary to that, Pellizzari and Billari (2012) have proven that younger students perform better. The result of the study is also explained by Moore et al. (2010). While the three needs were exhibited by students, the need for power was the least displayed motivation. The concept of “learning leadership rather than doing leadership” was more important to the students. The data shown in Table 5 is confirmed by studies which report that when it comes to academic performance, data varies considerably.

6. Significant difference between motivational profile of the business management students when grouped according to sex

As shown in Table 6, there is no significant difference in the motivational profiles of the students based on sex. Ho ₁ is hereby accepted.

Table 6. Motivational profile of the participants when grouped according to sex

MOTIVATIONAL PROFILE	GENDER	MEAN	SD	Sig. (2-tailed p)	REMARKS
Achievement	male female	3.238 3.238	0.384 0.416	0.995 0.995	no significant difference
Affiliation	male female	3.069 2.991	0.392 0.428	0.114 0.105	no significant difference
Power	male female	2.879 2.786	0.433 0.417	0.068 0.072	no significant difference

The studies by Raeisi et al. (2012) and confirmed the findings, that there is no difference in the priority pattern of motivational needs of the participants regardless of sex. However, Dietchman (2018) discovered substantial differences in the achievement need, with female students demonstrating a greater desire for achievement, affiliation, and power than their male counterparts. The reverse was found out by Mwihia (2020), where the male students outperformed their female counterparts in terms of academic achievement. Nonetheless, Johnstone (1995) argued that males have a greater need for power than females. He further added that males also exhibited a lower need for affiliation compared to females. Similarly, the recent study by Jooste and Hamani (2017) emphasized the significant difference in the need for power between males and females. It was discovered that women have lower desires for power than men. It is also supported by Subathra (2017), who stated that sex has a significant relationship to the motivation profile. A related study conducted by Arora and Jain (2019) revealed that males have more entrepreneurial inclinations than female students. Karaman and Watson (2017) conducted a study on the achievement motivation of American international students and found a significant difference.

Furthermore, research on the association between character traits and socio-demographics among Sri Lankan management students found a significant or substantial link between the need to achieve and gender differentiation. Male students are more entrepreneurial than female students, according to research (Nishantha, 2009). This inconsistent finding could be explained by the situational differences between the two countries, and the result could be context-specific.

6.1. Relationship between motivational profile and academic performance

As shown in Table 7, only the need for achievement has a significant but weak relationship with academic performance. Given the weak relationship, this means that there could be other factors that may contribute to students’ academic performance, such as economic situations, personal circumstances, external environment, or even the students’ level of intelligence and other aspects that are not covered in this study. The result is, however, consistent with McClelland’s theory of achievement motivation, which is characterized by the need to excel or succeed in whatever task a person undertakes. Furthermore, it has been confirmed in the studies of Fini and Yousefzadeh (2011), Yazdani and Godbole (2014), and Kumar and Tankha (2020) that achievement motivation is significantly correlated to high educational attainment. The results of the study by Herrero (2014) indicated that achievement motivation was the most significant predictor of the cumulative GPA of first-year college students. This likewise supports the previous studies mentioned. An additional support is the study of Ismail et al. (2015) on entrepreneurship education, wherein the need for achievement obtained the highest score. The correlation is deemed positive. The results of the study rejected H_2.1 and accepted H_2.2 and H_2.3. The study of Ikpaahindi (2001), which claims that there is a positive but low link between the need for success and productive output, backs up these findings.

Table 7. Relationship between motivational profile and academic performance

MOTIVATIONAL PROFILE	R coefficient	P-value	INTERPRETATION	DECISION
Achievement	−0.251	0.000	significant	reject
Affiliation	−0.076	0.180	not significant	accept
Power	−0.058	0.331	not significant	accept

7. Conclusion and recommendation

The general purpose of this study was to discuss the prevalent motivational profile among business management students at a state university in Cavite, Philippines. Most of the participants were female and single, whose ages ranged from 17–20 years old, and whose GPA’s fell within the bracket of 1.50–1.99. The profile shows that achievement was the dominant motivation among the business management students. The motivational profiles of student participants showed no significant differences when grouped according to sex. This data may imply that motivations may vary based on year level given the contextual challenges that students face. First-year students, for example, need to ensure that they get good grades to stay in the program, and as they progress and get to know more about their peers through various academic and non-academic engagements, the need for affiliation increases. Lastly, as they gain confidence in their academic and social settings, they also develop their assertiveness, which could explain their need for power in their last academic year. Of the three motivations, only achievement is correlated with high academic performance.

The study’s findings may also be taken into account when developing or selecting teaching styles, techniques, and methods. The dominant motivation may serve as the basis for choosing the most appropriate teaching style for this group of students. Revisions or modifications to the Business Management curriculum may also be recommended so as to properly distribute difficult subjects across year levels.

The limitations of this study are other variables which may affect and were not considered in relating the academic performance of the business management students to their motivational profile. These variables could be demographic characteristics, economic situations, personal circumstances, external environment, and other issues that may be relevant in assessing the academic achievement of the student participants. The researcher recommends that further studies be conducted to evaluate differences across various fields of specialization. Further, to better understand the motivation of students, future researchers may consider including more school year GPA coverage as a measure of academic performance. A similar study may also be conducted to include other business management students coming from the satellite campuses and even private universities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Jaysi Tanguilan Corpuz

Jaysi Tanguilan Corpuz is a licensed educator and faculty member at Cavite State University, Philippines. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in community development at the University of the Philippines Los Bańos. His research interests are: management, business administration, agribusiness management and entrepreneurship, extension education and community development.

Glenda Sullano Peña

Glenda Sullano Peńa is a faculty member at Cavite State University, Philippines. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in community development at the University of the Philippines Los Bańos. Her fields of interest are: management, development management and governance, disaster risks reduction management (DRRM) and community development.

Rowena Dela Torre Baconguis

Dela Torre Baconguis Rowena is a UP Scientist II and Professor of Extension Education in the Institute for Governance and Rural Development, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños. Her fields of expertise are extension education and development studies.