Human resource management - Essay Example

Motivation theories Role of motivation theories Motivation is a critical precept for employee’s productivity in the modern organizational set-up. Motivation benefits both the employee and the organization in terms of creativity and profits respectively. Organizations, however, possess a duty towards remunerating employees in the required sense. There are notable motivational theories that explain the link between pay and motivation. The goal setting theory, the expectancy theory, and the share ownership schemes theories help discern the link between cognitive processes and pay.

The goal setting theory, by Locke and Lantham, asserts that there is a profound relationship between performance and goals (Lunenburg, F.C. 2011, 1). Empirical research has supported the theory by proving that the most impressive performance result when an organization sets clear and specific goals. Effective goals should also be measurable, accurate, and time-bound (Kessler, I. 2012, 66). Clear goals ensure that employees attain a conspicuous sense of direction in their duties. Goals motivate employees to perform at stipulated levels (Perkins,S.

and White, G. 2011, 109). It is essential for both the organization and the employees to have distinct strategies about performance targets. This is because employees should work with goals that directly affect their departments. In this view, an organization pays an employee according to how one meets given goals. An employee that satisfactorily meets set goals possess a higher bargaining power in demanding for more pay. In turn, an organization faces the task of synchronizing incentives with the nature of number of goals that an employee is supposed to meet (Heery, E. 1996, 55).

On the other hand, the expectancy theory holds that an individual acts in a certain way because one chooses a given behavior out of a set of behaviors (Marsden, D. 2004, 17). Such a behavior results into the desired performance. This theory evaluates performance as an outcome of an employee’s ability and motivation to choose one type of behavior over the other (Pendleton, A. 2001, 88). Three factors play a crucial role in shaping this form of motivational behavior. To begin with, an employee makes a psychological link between effort and behaviors (Thompson, M.

2009, 131). In addition, the concept of instrumentality links behavior and outcome. Outcome, in this sense, is perceived as pay. Lastly, valence relates to how a person attaches value to an expected incentive (Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. 2008, 124). In the share and ownership scheme theory, the equity and justice theories play a fundamental role in determining pay. An employee, therefore, validates whether a pay progression system is fair in relative terms (Thompson, M. 2009, 131). The equity theory holds that an individual validate the fairness of their pay on a comparative basis.

Employees continually make judgments about merit and appraisal thereby determining whether one’s efforts are receiving the required rewards (Pendleton, A., Whitfield, K., & Bryson, A. 2009, 8). This is a highly subjective motivation theory that relies on the perception of a distributive justice system (Grimshaw, D., & Rubery, J. 2010, 352). This means that in as much as an employee may feel dissatisfied with a certain pay, one may still perceive such a decision might have been arrived at fairly.

The goal-setting theory, the expectancy theory, and the share ownership schemes theories are crucial to understanding pay systems. Psychological theories stretch beyond the monetary dimensions of pay. The psychological dispositions give value to cognitive processes in modeling pay systems. The goal setting theory stipulates that an employee attain rewards according to goals that one meets within given deadlines. On the other hand, the expectancy theory asserts that an individual chooses a given behavior that leads to the best outcome in terms of performance and pay.

Lastly, the share and ownership schemes theory value justice and equity in assigning pay. This regards the idea that employees make mental values of distributive justice systems in their respective organizations. . BibliographyGrimshaw, D., & Rubery, J., 2010. “Chapter 15-pay and working time: shifting contours of the employment relationship.” From Colling, T, Industrial relations: theory and practice pp.349-377, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Heery, E., 1996. Risk representation and the new pay.

Personnel Review, 25(6), pp. 54-65.Kessler, I., 2012. “Remuneration systems in” S.Bach eds. Managing human resources, Oxford: Blackwell publishers. Lunenburg, F.C., 2011. Goal-setting theory of motivation. International journal of management, business, and administration, 15(1), pp. 1-6. Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A., 2008. Human resource management at work: people management and development, London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Marsden, D., 2004. Value for money.

Centerpiece, Spring, pp. 15-19. Pendleton, A., 2001. Employee ownership, participation and governance: a study of ESOPs in the UK, London: Routledge.Pendleton, A., Whitfield, K., & Bryson, A., 2009. “The changing use of contingent pay at the modern British workplace.” In: Brown, William, Bryson, Alex, Forth, John and Whitfield, Keith, (eds.) The Evolution of the modern workplace. Cambridge University Press, CambridgePerkins,S. and White, G., 2011. Reward management, London: CIPD. Thompson, M., 2009. “Salary progression systems” from G.

White and J.Drucker eds. Reward Management: a Critical Text, pp. 120-147, London: Routledge.