A question of motivation - Case Study Example

A Question of Motivation Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 3 Introduction 4 Analysis of the Problem 4 Abstract The following paper involves an analysis of a case study touching on the organizational behavior. The paper will begin with an elaborate introduction that forecast the real contents of the case study. The paper will later provide an explicit and valid statement problem depicted from the case study. Next will be analysis of the problem. In order to engage conclusive analysis, the paper will make use of the various theories of organizational behaviors. Introduction Employee motivation is one of the greatest assets that direct and lead the growth of a company or industry. The level of motivation of various employees will pose significant changes on the performance of the particular organizational employees. Motivation can also make newly employed workers grasp the operations of an organization quickly. The case study involves conflict between Alex, a worker and Dan, his supervisor. Alex becomes bored for being allocated the same job every day until he dislikes his responsibility. Every day, Dan allocates Alex to arrange and fill shelves with apples to maintain the stock. Denise also works under the supervision of Dan, but does different work in the same store. In spite the fact that both Alex and Denise work under Dan and that Alex does more work than, and have even stayed in the organization longer than Denise, Alex receives lower pay than Denise. Still in the same organization but in different sector, Stephanie an employ who works under the supervision of Jonathan sell truffle oil that earns her good income and bonus when she delivers beyond certain expectations. In the organization, workers view Jonathan as one good supervisor whom everyone would desire to work with. Dan on the other hand is unfair in his dealings and seems to favor Denise at the expense of long serving Alex. Problem Statement The prevailing problem in this case study involves unfair reward and motivational opportunities for employees in the same organization. Analysis of the Problem Alex, working under the supervision of Dan is demoralized and lacks enthusiasm in his work. This is because Dan allocates him the same job every day with beliefs that someone works well when he practices the same job every day. Just like his colleague Denise who also works under the supervision of Dan, Alex feels that he should do different tasks for different days apart from stocking apples on the shelves. Alex feels detracted with job autonomy to an extent that he cannot eat apples during lunch because he kept touching the same items throughout the day, “Alex reached out at his lunch box and pulled out an apple, a look of disgust on his face.” This case study incorporates the concepts of Theory X that seeks to assume employees as immature to perfect their job responsibilities and therefore require micro-management from their particular managers. As indicated by Fisher (2000), McGregor the founder of theory X made it clear that most organizations that tend to operate under this theory characterizes with managers who blame workers without determining the cause of inefficiency in performances. In direct correspondence, Dan expects and makes a rule for all workers below him to serve lunch for not more than thirty minutes even at the time when the organization allows forty-five minutes for lunch. Dan believes that Alex are mere university students who cannot manage time properly and therefore requires compulsion to finish lunch break before the official time to maintain high punctuality. This trend and form of time management as favored by Dan, angers and even demoralizes Alex who admires the supervision of enjoyed by the colleagues like Stephanie while under Jonathan. Furthermore, Alex’s demoralization as far as time management by Dan is concerned compiles due to lack of overtime compensation even as he begins working before the end of the official lunch break. Theory Y, also founded by Douglas McGregor applies in some parts of this case study. According Fisher (2000), Theory Y of organizational behavior argues that employees in organizations have self motivation and will do their jobs with the required care and expertise. Rainey (2009) asserts that managers and supervisors who operate under the basis of this theory are able to create appropriate employee satisfaction that results to good relations with the leaders to an extent of encouraging positive and relevant creativity. This case attributes to Jonathan and Stephanie, who have some good relations depicted by proper coordination and promises, “Besides, if I sell the oil Jonathan said that he will give me a $75 bonus.” It is because of such good relations and bounty promises that Stephanie is able to work exemplary hard to discover unique and impressive recipes that please clients. The high levels of motivation that Stephanie gets from Jonathan makes her believe that she can perform difficult task and even agree to the goal of selling ten bottle of truffle oil in a week. Contrary to Alex who works under stringent supervision of Dan, Stephanie motivation derives from the freedom that sees her perform duties with Jonathan’s closeness, “I will be able to do this without anyone breathing on my neck.” The expectancy theory of organizational behavior further compiles the problem of unfair and varied motivational opportunities. The expectancy theory argues that the actions or behaviors of workers are usually focused to result desirables or valence (Koontz & Weihrich, 1990). As observed by Pride, Hughes and Kapoor (2012), expectancy theory explores why workers decide to behave in particular ways what and the efforts they exert towards certain decisions. Under the expectancy theory, behavior of workers and effort exerted targets certain positive outcomes in job performance. This fact is evident in the case of Denise, a co-worker to Alex who earns $2 more than Alex while doing a job of similar magnitude to Alex. While at the lunch break and holding discussions with Stephanie over the unfavorable treatments by Dan, Alex confesses that he works very hard as does Denise but does not praise Dan’s shirt and car as does Denise. The arguments of Alex, prospects of expectancy theory could be the forces behind repeated praises wavered by Denise to Dan to create desirable outcomes of good relation that invites good pay and duty rotation. Stephanie on the other side and while working under the prospects of expectancy theory explores new ways of preparing good recipe that attracts customers into the culinary centre. Her efforts reap her good and desirable outcomes involving fair relationship with the supervisor, which ensures her bounty bonuses and rewards. It is under the precepts of expectancy theory that Alex dropped Dan’s sandwiched food and smeared it on the flow and restocked it in the refrigerator. With this behavior, Alex expected that Dan will become angry and reassign him another duty apart from the casual stocking of apples on the shelve. Equity theory could also be an explanation to the problem of unfair and varied motivation in the case study (Vibert, 2004). According to the equity theory of organizational behavior, workers derive motivation and job satisfaction by comparing their contributions into the workforce and the resultant income with the same achieved by other people in the same or different firm (Miner, 2007). This prospect of the equity theory is influencing organizational behavior in this case study. While serving his lunch break, Alex indulges into comparative discussions with Stephanie. In the discussion, Alex and Stephanie make reference to the magnitude and shifts of work done by Denise, her stay in the organization and pay she gets. Alex and Stephanie realize that Dan is unfair as he handles his juniors in unequal ways and this demoralizes Alex even more. As a way of encouraging Alex and convincing him to appreciate his leader, Stephanie leads comparative discussion of Jean to Alex. They find that Jean gets much lower pay than do Alex, “At least you make more than Jean. She has been here for seven years.” Furthermore, Alex makes a personal comparison with Stephanie, who enjoys abundant relief, freedom and bonuses upon positive performance. Alex instead gets written commendations pinned on the shelves whenever he does good arrangement of the apples, “good job.” It is due to such unfairness in opportunities in the same organization that further demoralizes Alex from working hard to his full potential. Hertzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory of the organizational behavior provides another crucial basis for analyzing the problem of motivation in the case study. In move to exemplify this theory, Hertzberg indicated that motivational factors that ensure job satisfaction differed from dissatisfaction factors (Champoux, 2011). He then classified job satisfiers as motivators and dissatisfies as hygiene factors. Hygiene factors refereed to maintenance factors that help avoid dissatisfaction but do not provide satisfaction (Hegar, 2012). Dissatisfies include relationship with the boss and peers, salary, work condition, supervision and policy that govern the company. Satisfiers on the other hand include growth, work, responsibility, recognition and achievement. The problem of unfair motivational opportunities in the case study and that relates to the theory is evident where Dan fails to recognize the efforts by Alex in his duty and level his pay with that of Denise. Job autonomy is responsible for Alex’s boredom as he keeps stocking apples from time to time until he is dissatisfied with his responsibility. References Business Mantra. (2009). Organizational Theory’s Benefits to Management! Retrieved June 11, 2012 from: http://www.businessmantra.net/organizational-theorys-benefits-to-management.html Champoux, J. (2011). Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups, and Organizations. Madison, NY: Taylor and Francis Press. Fisher, K. (2000). Leading self-directed work teams: A guide to developing new team leadership skills. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hegar, K. (2012). Modern Human Relations at Work. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Hiray, J. (2007). Organization behavior and Expectancy theory. Retrieved June 11, 2012 from: http://businessmanagement.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/organization-behavior-and-expectancy-theory/ Koontz, H., & Weihrich, H. (1990). Essentials of management. New York [u.a.: McGraw-Hill. Miner, J. B. (2007). Organizational behavior: 4. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Pride, W. M., Hughes, R. J., & Kapoor, J. R. (2012). Business. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Vibert, C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior: A handbook of ideas and explanations. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Read More