Comparing Co-Workers and Motivation - Case Study Example

? Comparing co-workers against each other- does this motivate employees Forced rankings hinder innovation and risk-takingculture in the organization. The rigid rankings also demoralize the low performers and create a culture of competition among the co-workers which hinders team work and motivation in the workplace. This paper will discuss the effect of forced rankings of co-workers on job motivation. The paper shall also address motivation theories and emotional intelligence. Forced rankings lower the intensity and persistence of employee motivation in job performance. Forced rankings are time consuming hence interfere with the work of the employees. The motivation of employees can be explained by content theories or process theories. Job security, recognition and career development opportunities can improve employee motivation. Emotional intelligence includes the skills and abilities which are important in self-control and developing working relationships with co-workers. Comparing co-workers against each other- does this motivate employees Introduction Forced rankings do not motivate employees. Effective job performance is determined by the willingness to perform, the capacity to perform and the opportunities for the job performance (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). The willingness to perform the job refers to the motivation of the employees which are the desires to exert more efforts towards achievement of the goals and results of the job. Forced rankings lower the intensity and persistence of employee motivation in job performance. Forced rankings are time consuming hence interfere with the work of the employees. Some companies usually compare the performance of co-workers in evaluating the individual employee performance and level of motivation. Some major companies engage in costly and time-consuming performance evaluation techniques which pit employees against their colleagues. Forced rankings among co-workers have come under sharp criticism since some companies have been ranking employees based on their age and not work performance (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Steve Kerr, a leadership training program manager at Goldman Sachs Group Inc has raised negative criticism on the use of forced rankings in evaluating the performance of employees. General Electric Company has injected the practice of using common sense in assigning the rankings among the employees. Many companies like American Airlines and Yahoo have incorporated managerial judgment to the strict yardsticks in their merit rankings (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Expectancy theory which is a process theory of employee motivation can be used to analyze whether forced rankings can motivate employees (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). The theory was developed by Victor Vroom and includes the first and second level outcomes, instrumentality, valence and expectancy. First level outcomes are the results of behavior which is associated with the job like quality of productivity and absenteeism. Second level outcomes are the consequences of the first level outcomes and include the rewards and punishments like job termination or pay increases (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Forced ratings also lead to absenteeism and high employee turnover among the lower performers since expect punishments like termination of the services at the end of the rating period. Forced rating hinder team spirit and collaboration among the co-workers hence lower performance appraisal of some employees may create a feeling of group rejection which lowers the overall organizational productivity. Forced rankings lower the effort-performance expectancy which lowers motivation among the employees (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). According to the equity theory of motivation, employees compare the efforts and outcomes with those of co-workers in similar work situation (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Employees desire fairness and equality in the workplace. In determining equity, the individual employee considers his or her inputs which include the skills, experience and time devoted to the job and the outcomes which include additional fringe benefits and recognition and makes a comparison to a reference which may be a co-worker or group (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Forced rankings create inequality in the job appraisals since rankings do not consider the individual employee inputs like the age, the skills level, the work experience and the outcomes of employment (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Low-rated employees may change their inputs by reducing the efforts dedicated to the job and the time taken to accomplish the task (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Forced rankings encourage employees to change their attitudes towards the job when they perceive inequity in the rankings. Employees may demand higher pay rises, promotion or job security or leave the job after continued unfairness in the forced rankings (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Question two. Equity theory of motivation and negative reactions to forced rankings According to equity theory, forced rankings may create a feeling of inequality in the job performance evaluation. Forced rankings among co-workers may ignore the inputs and the outcomes of the job. Employee may react negatively to the forced rankings by changing their inputs which are the skills, the time and effort committed to the job which will hinder effective work performance thus lowering organizational overall productivity (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Employee may also change the outcomes of the job by demanding higher pay, more training opportunities, job security and good working conditions. Unless equity is restored in the forced rankings, employees may leave the job due to frustrations on the merit rating system. Other negative reactions which may be witnessed in the workplace include low employee morale and team work, increased absenteeism and high incidents of accidents in the workplace which reduces the profitability of the organization (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Question 3. How to motivate employees other than forced rankings Managers of companies can motivate employees without the use of forced rankings. According to the Maslow’s need hierarchy theory, employees desire to satisfy lower level needs before directing their efforts towards the higher needs like the need of self esteem (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Once the need has been satisfied, it ceases to be a motivator. The unsatisfied needs can lead to absenteeism, conflicts and stress in the workplace hence the manager should consider the unique needs of the employees in order to motivate them (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). According to the need hierarchy theory, employees should receive fair compensation in order to cater for their basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. The management should provide job security, medical insurance and good working environment (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Employees should be encouraged to form informal work groups in order to enhance their team spirit in their working groups. Employee excellent job performance should be recognized through promotions and awards in order to create a sense of belongingness and esteem among the employees (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Career progression and development opportunities should be made available in order to help the employees achieve their self-actualization goals. For instance, Mary Kay Inc has based their motivation program on the needs of the workers through offering commissions to the best performing teams and encouraging autonomy and recognition in the work performance (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). According to Alderfer’s ERG theory, employee needs can be classified to existence, relatedness and growth needs (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Existence needs include food, salary and good working conditions while relatedness needs include the interpersonal relationships in the workplace. Growth needs include the need of individual creativity and innovation in the workplace (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). The management should encourage employees to pursue lower level needs in order to avoid frustrations. For instance, where the employee is not capable of fulfilling their growth needs in the workplace, the management should encourage the particular employee to divert efforts towards a lower level need like establishing good working relationships with co-workers. If the relatedness needs are incapable of achievement, the manager should offer higher salaries and other benefits which can enable the employee to fulfill existence needs (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Hertzberg’s two-factor theory According to theory, there are motivator factors and hygiene factors which should be provided by the management in order to motivate the employees. Hygiene factors do not increase job motivation but are necessary to maintain the workers in the workplace and include monetary rewards like good pay, job security, working conditions, policies and rules in the organization (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). In order to motivate the employees, the manager should ensure job satisfaction factors are present and these include recognition for job well done, opportunities for career advancement, increased authority and responsibility and creating a sense of achievement among the employees (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). McClelland’s learned needs theory The management can utilize the learned need theory in motivating the employees. The manager should encourage employees to set challenging job goals which can be attained. The manager should also provide enough training tools to the employees in their work. The managers should also reward the employees for achievement of their job goals (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Exercise 4.1 Impressions of others. The rating scale used is as follows based on personal opinions of them and experience of interacting with them. None/Not = 1 Somewhat = 2 Average = 3 Above average/ very = 4 Significant / highly = 5 Recent college graduate beginning a career Internal revenue service accountant. Service mechanic in car dealership Elected politician Experienced contract lawyer Emergency room nurse Police officer. Rating score. knowledgeable 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 Intelligent 2 5 3 4 5 5 3 Sensitive 2 5 2 4 5 4 5 Open 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 Conscientious 2 5 4 5 5 5 4 Emotional 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 Arrogant 5 2 3 5 3 4 5 Boring 3 3 5 4 1 2 4 Question one According to the above ratings, recent college graduate beginning a career received the least favorable ratings while experienced contract lawyers received the most favorable ratings. The reason why recent college graduates have attained least favorable ratings is their inexperience in the corporate world and lack of interpersonal skills in their interaction in their society. Experienced contract lawyers have received the most favorable ratings due to their large client portfolio in the corporate world. Experienced contract lawyers are sensitive and knowledgeable since there are entrusted with large amounts of client money. Question two The ratings have certain stereotyping pattern since police officers have scored poorly on intelligence. This can be attributed to group prejudice where police officers are seen to be lacking enough academic qualifications. Also not all experienced contract lawyers are open since some have misappropriated client money or misadvised their clients on their rights and obligations under the contracts. Question three I have had experience with police officers after I went to report a case of attempted robbery. The police officers were not emotional and seemed arrogant while asking the suspects questions. The police officers were boring since they keep asking similar questions for a long period of time. However, the officers where sensitive on the information I provided to them since they promised to keep it confidential. The experience could have been influenced by the authoritative police management style. Question four Recent college graduates beginning a career are funny (5) while emergency room nurses are attentive (5). Police officers are cruel (4) while experienced contract lawyers are formal (5). Internal revenue service accountants are decisive (5) while mechanics in car dealership are embarrassed (4). Elected politicians are bossy (5) and busy (4). Emotional intelligence Emotional intelligence is the combination of abilities and skills such as self-control, empathy and sensitivity to the feelings of others. Emotions help in understanding and predicting the behavior of others (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Emotional intelligence is significant for career success in management since it leads to emergence of other important leadership traits like integrity, persistence and passion. Emotional intelligence is critical in conflict resolutions among co-workers (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Managers also use their emotional intelligence in directing the behavior of the subordinates. Emotional intelligence helps the management in identifying the needs of the subordinates hence they can implement work policies will lead to higher job satisfaction. My supervisor has a higher emotional intelligence since he is able to identify any employee work dissatisfaction. The supervisor has been able to create good working relationships among the employees (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2011). Conclusion Forced rankings among co-workers do not lead to motivation since they creativity and create a climate of competition among the co-workers. Managers can motivate employees by ensuring equitable compensation, providing career training and development opportunities. Recognition and sense of achievement are also important motivators. Emotional intelligence helps the management in controlling the subordinates’ behavior and building working relationships in the organization. References: Ivancevich, J.M., Konopaske, R & Matteson, T.M. (2011). Organizational behavior and management. 9th Ed. New York. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Read More