What Is the Best Way to Motivate People - Essay Example

?Business psychology 2: Managers often ask business psychologists “What is the best way to motivate people?” How would you answer this question, and why? There is a great hue and cry about the computerization and mechanization of work; with the human component becoming less important and less necessary (Atkinson, 2010). This philosophy is often propounded by those who want to minimize the value of people in the workplace. But practicing managers know that this is far from the truth. While it may be true that a number of human positions have been converted to mechanized functions; the value of people in any organization cannot be replaced. The human employees of an organization are what provide the impetus for growth (Matthewman, Rose & Hetherington; 2009). Every manager also knows that the human employees in an organization are responsible for the value of the organization as a whole; and need to be kept motivated and happy in order for the organization to flourish. Unhappy and de-motivated employees are less productive, and more likely to make mistakes which can cost them as individuals as well as the organization as a whole. They have less consistency and higher turnover rates. Thus, all managers are perpetually concerned with the task of keeping employees motivated regardless of other factors. Introduction to Motivation Scientific research into motivation has brought considerable awareness about the factors that keep people motivated; as well as the ways to create an environment that encourages employee involvement (Matthewman, Rose & Hetherington; 2009). A number of theorists have attempted to make sense of the factors that govern human motivation and have tried to apply these factors to the workplace. There are distinct similarities that systematically arise across these theories; providing an understanding of the ways to use this knowledge in the practical application of managing employees. The most significant understanding that scientific research has afforded us is that Motivation is defined in terms of three underlying principles – the direction of the action; the extent of effort and the amount of persistence (Warr, 2002). Direction tells us the end goal towards which an individual is motivated to move; while effort is a measure of the amount of involvement the individual is ready to invest. The factor of persistence helps us evaluate the likelihood that the individual will continue to exert the said effort in the selected direction; even in the face of difficulties. It is important for a manager who is exploring ways to motivate employees to keep all three factors in mind. It is especially important, since this definition tells us that measurable productivity and output is not necessarily the best measure of motivation. It is important to delve into the actual activities of the employee to ascertain that he / she is motivated towards the right direction; is employing effort and is being persistent in getting the job done. Perspective of Managers While there are a number of theoretical models that have been explored – the content theories, the process theories and the cognitive factors theories – managers have traditionally been focusing on the content of motivation, as these are factors that they believe they are able to understand and influence. The most basic understanding of motivation has been explored by McGregor (1960) and Schien (1980). According to McGregor, there are two ways in which a manager can view employees; and he calls them theory X and theory Y. managers who follow theory X believe that employees are basically lazy and self-fulfilling; and need to be motivated using rewards and incentives to ensure that they keep working. They are not concerned about the organization and so, need to be controlled. On the other hand, managers who follow theory Y believe that employees are genuinely interested in the betterment of the organization as well as themselves; and should be trusted to be far thinking and flexible. Depending on the theory followed by a manager, he will deal with employee concerns differently; and will use different strategies to get work done (Matthewman, Rose & Hetherington; 2009). Schien (1980) has added to this concept by saying that the employee may be a Social Man – and be motivated by the interactions and relationships that he / she develops in a workplace. Thus, to be productive, an employee requires a conducive environment of co-operative and positive relationships. This theory helps us understand the manager and his / her manner of perceiving and responding to employee motivation (Warr, 2002). This is also an important factor; as employees do respond to the attitudes of managers; and the manager needed to understand his / her own attitude towards employees so as to make sense of the inputs received from employees. Theories of Motivation and their Application Theories that have been applied to understanding and addressing employee motivation include the need hierarchy of Maslow (1943, 1970), the three factor theory of Alderfer (1972), McClellands (1961) Social Needs theory, and Herzberg’s (1959) two factor theory. Of these, the most well known and often applied theory is the Needs motivation theory given by Maslow. Regardless of which theory a manager chooses to follow; each of these theories underline the factors that govern the elements of employee motivation; and can be used to understand the optimal ways of motivating the said employees. Maslow’s original work in 1943 was not directly related to the workplace; but over the years, many people have applied it to understand the ways in which different cadres of employees may be motivated. According to this theory, an individual may be motivated by needs that are hierarchal in arrangement. The level at which an individual operates is identified by the level at which they are experiencing a Deficit; and the said hierarchy is governed by pre-potency, so that people try to fulfil their most basic needs first and then move on to the higher ones (Matthewman, Rose & Hetherington; 2009). The most basic needs are the most in number; and demand the most attention. These include basic needs of survival like food water, shelter and sex. These are the physiological needs that keep the human body healthy and functioning. The next in line are the safety needs that cover the need to have predictability and a non – threatening environment. The third tier of needs is the needs for social affiliation which include the needs to develop relationships and bonds with other people. Higher up in the hierarchy are the needs to satisfy esteem, like the need to achieve a particular status and gain the aspect of others. The highest level contains the need for self – actualization – a need that is reached by a precious few. It involves the need to develop one’s own potential and achieve internal satisfaction (Matthewman, Rose & Hetherington; 2009). The main problem with the Need hierarchy theory (Bridwell, 1976, Pfeffer, 1977, etc) is that there is no way to predict which need will be activated in the near or distant future; and that there are no clear behavioural correlates to the needs. Different people by exhibit the same behaviour in response to different needs; and different behaviours in response to the same need. Thus, as a manager, it is difficult to decide on the best response to employee motivation. The theory also does not explain why some people distinctly behave in manners where they ignore basic needs in favour of higher needs (hunger strikes, risk – seeking behaviours). According to Wicker (1993), this theory can best be used when responding to intentions to cat rather than the actual behaviours. Ronen (2001) and Kamalanabhan et al (1999) have also provided evidence for the practical taxonomy of Maslow’s theory when applied to the workplace. They believe that it is possible to evaluate how changes will affect the level at which employee motivation operates on the basis of this theory; and that management decisions about the workplace should be based on the level at which they want employees to operate; keeping in mind that all lower levels should be met adequately. Thus, an organization that wishes it’s employees to be motivated to co-ordinate and co-operate well and develop effective communication; needs to ensure that the needs for physical comfort and safety (including job security) should be satisfied (Matthewman, Rose & Hetherington; 2009). Alderfer (1972) has compressed the five factors of Maslow’s model to three and called the three factors Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. The basic needs considered are the same; but this model has better scientific support when applied to practical conditions like the work environment. This could be because the categorization of needs in the ERG model is more natural and practical; and the model allow for more flexibility of the explanation of human behaviour (Warr, 2002; Beck 2000). This theory has also been applied to the workplace with moderate success in predicting the level that motivates the majority of the employees; and the ways in which employee motivation can be met. Wanous & Zwany (1977) and Rauchenberger et al (1980) have provided evidence for this; though Staw et al (1986) still argue that the theory is not as precise as could be hoped for. McClelland (1961) believed that needs do not need to be hierarchal; but can be fluid; with situational responses causing a person to operate from one or the other need (Beck, 2000). According to this theory, there are three needs that a person may operate from - the need for Achievement, the need for Affiliation, and the need for Power. At any point, a person may be motivated by one of these three needs; and that will define the individual’s end goal (Molden, Dweck; 2000). Research has shown that this theory has potential to be used in the work environment. For example, McClelland and Winter were able to find correlates to entrepreneurial activities as well as sales. On the basis of this theory, it may be possible to estimate the possible success a person may have in a particular position; and the likelihood that the individual will invest significant effort into the job. Typically, employees with a need for achievement do better with individual responsibility and challenges when they get feedback on a regular basis. They are more likely to show finesse and expertise and provide value to positions where volumes or quality are paramount (Molden, Dweck; 2000). Employees with a need to affiliate, on the other hand, will do more in a job that required networking and socializing by providing opportunities to communicate with many people. Such individuals do well in Personal relations and Customer Service (Beck, 2000). Individual who are driven by a need for power, are likely to respond best to positions where they have control and supervisory duties; and be motivated by growth opportunities that help them climb the organizational ladder. One final theory that has been applied to the manager’s requirements of understanding and responding to employee motivation if the two factor theory given by Herzberg in 1959. According to this theory, it is possible to predict when an employee will be motivated, as well as when the employee with be de-motivated. The two factors discussed by this theory are the Motivators and the Hygiene factors (Beck, 2000). The motivators are the factors that enhance an individual’s motivation by their presence and the hygiene factors are those factors that reduce an individual’s motivation by their absence (Warr, 2002). When applied to the work environment, we may say that the motivators would include factors like recognition, the type of work, advancement and responsibility; while the hygiene factors would consist of factors like money, security and regular supervision. The most valuable aspect of this theory is that it assumes that the two aspects – motivators and hygiene factors – work relatively independent of each other. Thus, this theory is able to explain the situation wherein an employee is feeling conflicted due to finding elements of the job motivating him while coping with elements that are de-motivating. Such conflicted employees are likely to act inconsistently; and they work may reflect this inconsistency (Warr. 2002). It is necessary that a manager address the hygiene factors for such an employee; so that the motivators may allow the individual to function better. Although the two-factor theory seems to be valuable; there are some problems with its application. The first is that identified by studies like the one by Kanfer (1990) wherein the incident based application of the theory may be affected by the validity of responses given by the employee. Reluctance to discuss and fear of consequences may affect the honesty of the responses; and thus, the problems faced by employees may not be adequately addressed. The second issue is that this theory applies better to white-collar positions as compared to worker positions. Thus, a large number of the applications of this theory are seen on office job enrichment and jobs re-design. Identifying Motivational Conditions On the basis of these theoretical constructs we may be able to help managers to identify the various means to motivate employees. These theories help us identify the categories of factors that may be used to motivate individuals. Different employees respond to different motivating factors; and the same policies may not work for all employees even at the same cadre (Vroom & Deci, 1970). Ideally, a manager should be able to tailor a motivational strategy to the needs and requirements of the employee concerned. Another thing that a manager can do is to assess the categories of needs that drive different people and then provide optional incentives that the employees can choose from. Thus, an employee who is motivated by financial incentives will choose to work towards a bonus; while an employee who prefers achievement feedback will work for a publication or an employee award (Vroom & Deci, 1970). An employee who prefers social interactions will do better when asked to co-ordinate the efforts of different people, while an intern will work towards a full time position with job security. The process of identifying the needs of employees may be a tricky task; as employees are likely to hide their true thoughts and feelings if they believe that these thoughts and feelings will not be appreciated in the organization. Thus, simply asking employees may result in socially acceptable answers that do not project the truth; and may not be helpful in developing effective motivational strategies. At such times managers can use surveys and other instruments specifically designed for the purpose of identifying and addressing employee needs and preferences. Some examples of the same are the Motivational analysis of organizations - behaviour [MAO-B] (1986) by Pareek, the Managerial work-values scale (1991) by Rao, the Inventory of barriers to creative thought and innovative action (1990) by Martin and the Workplace collaboration inventory (2004) by Leigh. These and other instruments can be used to assess the dominant needs and work values that the employees subscribe to; and the same may then be used to develop tailored and effective motivational packages that the employees will relate to. Conclusion Thus, a manager will be able to motivate the majority of the employees without trial and error. He / she will also be able to identify the employees who are experiencing dissatisfaction; and will be able to work with them to address the reasons for dissatisfaction. Such a manager will have employees who not only feel good about the organization they are a part of; but are also productive and efficient. References Atkinson, P. (2010). Technology making it worse. A theory of our civilisation. Retrived from http://www.ourcivilisation.com. Beck, R. C. (2000). Motivation: Theories and principles. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bernstein, D. J. (1990). Of carrots and sticks: A review of Deci and Ryan's Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54(3), 323-332. Matthewman, L.J., Rose, A. & Hetherington, A., (2009) Work psychology: an introduction to human behaviour in the workplace. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.  Molden, D. C., Dweck, C. S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance pp. 131-159. San Francisco: Academic Press. Vroom, V. H., & Deci, E. L. (Eds.) (1970). Management and motivation. New York: Penguin Books. Warr, P. (Ed.) (2002). Psychology at work, (4th Ed.). London: Penguin. Read More