Effective Motivational Techniques: Private versus Public Organizations - Research Paper Example

 Effective Motivational Techniques: Private versus Public Organizations Abstract The paper aims to proffer pertinent issues relative to comparative motivational techniques deemed effective in private versus public organizations in the United States. Using secondary sources of information through a review of related literature, the discourse would initially present a general overview of contemporary motivational practices in the workplace setting, prior to delving into the dominant motivational techniques and programs considered effective in private and public organizations. The highlight of the findings would reveal which motivational programs and incentive schemes are most crucial in enhancing employee performance and increasing productivity on a comparative basis. A concluding portion would summarize relevant details from the discourse. Effective Motivational Techniques: Private versus Public Organizations One of the most closely monitored and evolving concepts in organizational behavior is motivation. Diverse professionals and business practitioners have conducted various studies that revealed the crucial impact that motivational programs have spurred towards the achievement of organizational goals. Factors that have been proven to enhance employee performance and productivity have been scrutinized, ranging from remarkable cash benefits and non-monetary incentive schemes, or a combination of both. However, since contemporary organizations have evolved and were delineated in terms of structure, purpose and roles, public and private organizations for instance, could not possibly apply the same set of motivational programs deemed to be effective in their respective workplace settings. In this regard, the paper aims to proffer pertinent issues relative to comparative motivational techniques deemed effective in private versus public organizations in the United States. Using secondary sources of information through a review of related literature, the discourse would initially present a general overview of contemporary motivational practices in the workplace setting delving into the dominant motivational techniques and programs considered effective in private and public organizations. The highlights of the findings would reveal which motivational programs and incentive schemes or validated guidelines are most crucial in enhancing employee performance and increasing productivity on a comparative basis. A concluding portion would summarize relevant details from the discourse. Contemporary Motivational Techniques Contemporary organizations have evolved into more sophisticated and complex institutions due to the influence of various external and internal factors that affect their operations. Various workplace trends have necessitated the need to adapt and adjust to new development ranging from “globalisation of the economy, mergers, privatisation, speedy advancement in information communication technology (ICT), environmental sustainability, aging workforce, and increasing wealth separation” [Tawnd]. The transformation was marked and evidently validated by Thomas (2009) who acknowledged having reviewed motivation in the workplace setting for more than 30 years. Thomas (2009) averred that “the proportion of American workers who say that their work is meaningful, allows them discretion, and makes use of their abilities has more than doubled… (Current breed of employees) raised during an era of rapid technological change and instant access to data, respond best to work that is more meaningful, allows them to learn cutting-edge skills, and lets them find their own ways of accomplishing tasks” (p. 1). However, as noted by Boyne (2002), “critics of New Public Management argue that differences between public and private organizations are so great that business practices should not be transferred to the public sector” (p. 97). Concurrently, private organizations do not expect public organizational practices to be deemed applicable in their workplace setting, particularly with regards to motivational programs, performance evaluation, and other managerial functions. The differences between private and public organizations were clearly summed, to wit: “1. The public sector is made up of agencies and institutions owned and operated by the government, while the private sector is made up of small businesses, corporations, as well as profit and non-profit organizations. 2. The public sector is not profit-driven, while this is the case with the private sector. 3. The end beneficiary of the services offered by the public sector is the general public, while it is the general consuming public who take advantage of the goods and services offered for profit by the private sector businesses” [Dif12] Identified as the force or drive that influences people to be directed towards an identified goal (Martires and Fule, 2004; Ud din and Inamullah, 2008), motivation is considered a crucial element that must be incorporated in organizational practices to sustain and support operational growth. Adeyemi (2010) has specifically revealed that “intrinsic motivation is needed in order to arouse a worker's passion or commitment to the job he/she does. It is also important to stress that shared vision, leadership, team work, training, increased capability, and goal accomplishment are inseparable and powerful motivators that can be encouraged and embedded to create a high performance culture” [Ade10]. In the public sector, a study conducted by Wright (2003) cited and reveal several researches by diverse authors disclosed that “public sector employees have been found to place a lower value on financial rewards and a higher value on helping others or public service than their private sector counterparts” (p. 4). However, the same research indicated the need to further validate the contentions given insufficient and contradictory support from other public organizations [Wri03]. In one study written by Kalala (2009), he cited Perry, et al. (2006) as indicating that “according to numerous studies conducted among public employees, the results indicated that among those surveyed, financial rewards was not the most motivating factor” (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, Motivating employees in a new governance era: the performance paradigm revisited, 2006; cited by Kalala, 2009, p. 1). Wright’s (2003) findings revealed that extrinsic rewards do not provide enough motivating influences to public organization employees to focus on the suggestion that “public sector employees are more motivated by the intrinsic rewards associated with altruistic and service related opportunities but that these rewards reduce the importance of extrinsic rewards in public organizations” (Perry & Wise, 1990; cited in Wright, 2003, p. 20). A closer evaluation of related literatures indicate that employees from both private and public organizations, despite their serving significantly different organizational structure and type, value intrinsic rewards more than extrinsic incentives. To clarify, Vallerand (2004) distinguished intrinsic from extrinsic rewards by through the following definitions, to wit: “Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in an activity for itself and for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from participation…When extrinsically motivate, individuals do not engage in the activity out of pleasure but rather do so to derive some kind of rewards that are external to the activity itself” (p. 429). Since intrinsic rewards were revealed to be more motivating for both private and public personnel and these information is easily determined and solicited from authoritative and academic sources, then, how come “despite the frequent review of workers' salaries and allowances over the years, it is amazing to learn that a good number of employees are getting dissatisfied with their jobs and work condition (Oshiomole, 1992; cited in Adeyemi, 2010, p. 1)? The response would hereby determine what factors or guidelines assist in effectively applying motivational techniques to achieve the purpose these programs are supposed to attain. Guidelines to Effective Motivational Programs After having identified that intrinsic rewards, which are outcomes that come from the performance of the work itself (such as satisfaction felt directly by an employee after a job well done and are mainly under the employee’s own control), are the main motivators for both private and public organizations’ personnel, the review of previous research has enabled one to gather and collate findings that would assist contemporary organizations in applying the most effective motivational schemes. According to Adeyemi (2010), “what really matters in boosting employee productivity or output is not the kind of motivation that is employed but the extent to which the employee is being truly motivated by any chosen method” (p. 1). This implies that a well-designed and innovative motivation program needs to consider the specific needs and drives of its subordinates to be truly effective. There are types and classification of workers, depending on their roles and responsibilities in the organization that need to be incorporated and evaluated in the incentive programs. Kalala (2009) has emphasized that “public administration employees can be motivated using different techniques other than financial-based rewards such as on-job challenges, provision of work autonomy as well as providing performance feedbacks to motivate professional workers. To effectively motivate low level workers, dependent workers, techniques such as pay increase, permanent employment status after certain time on the job and opportunities for professional development” (p. 1). The rationale for not focusing on financial-based rewards for public organization employees is that the compensation of these employees depend on the budget allocated by the government. Unlike in private organizations, financial rewards and bonuses could be effectively linked to exemplary performance, especially when the performance accords the organization with vast opportunities for financial gain. Further, as disclosed by Kalala (2009), “public officers find it difficult to use job promotions to reward workers due to bureaucracy and cronyism that is inherent in public organizations. Additionally, managers and supervisors in public administration positions find it difficult to financially reward best performers due to public ethics act and other existing legislations whose provisions restrict financial rewards” (p. 1). Managers in public organizations therefore resort to providing intrinsic rewards in the form of recognition, achieving a sense of fulfillment for a acknowledging work well done, and providing the employees with self-direction and the opportunity for self-management. In the study conducted by Thomas (2009), he identified four intrinsic rewards in contemporary workplace setting as: (1) sense of meaningfulness; (2) sense of choice; (3) sense of competence; and (4) sense of progress” (p. 1). A sense of meaningfulness is given due recognition as the employee identifies the value of the purpose being pursued. The sense of choice is considered a reward to employees where managers have established trust and confidence for delegating crucial tasks, as needed. A sense of competence is arrived at through experience and expertise in one’s line of work. Finally, a sense of progress is clearly measured through the identification of goals and the strategies employed to achieve them. Summary and Conclusion The comparative analysis of motivation in public and private organizations revealed no significant differences in terms of application of motivational programs as employees from both organizational types indicated preference for intrinsic over extrinsic rewards.The constraints and restricted ability of public organization managers to provide financial rewards justify the use of alternative non-monetary incentives to assist in enhancing job performance and satisfaction. As emphasized by Thomas (2009), “the intrinsic rewards seem to create a strong, win/win form of motivation for both an organization and its employees—and one which suits the times. This type of motivation is focused on the shared desire that employees’ work makes an effective contribution to meaningful purposes” (p. 1). The implication of this finding is that despite significant differences between public and private organizations, the underlying factors that drive and engage employees to work towards the achievement of organizational goals remain universal in nature. When pay and other monetary incentives have served the basic physiologigal and security needs of the workers, personnel look for more motivating factors that would satify higher order needs. As job responsibilities and tasks encourage more creativity and innovativeness from employees to accomplished defined objectives, both public and private managers recognize the need to design and implement motivational schemes that respond to the changing expectations and trends of current times. References Tawnd: , (Tawo, Arikpo, & Ojuah, n.d., p. 17), Dif12: , (Difference Between Public and Private Sectors, 2012, p. 1), Ade10: , (Adeyemi, 2010, p. 1), Wri03: , (Wright, 2003), Read More