Creating a Motivating Environment in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

? Creating a Motivating Environment in the Workplace BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Creating a Motivating Environment in the Workplace Introduction There are motivational factors that are driven by inherent psychological processes and self-concept issues, along with the inter-linkage between environment and the individual, that drive motivational responses in the workplace. The factors that drive basic motivations as measured under recognizable and respected models of understanding from experts reinforces that most personal demands are driven intrinsically. Many businesses create schemes to improve motivation, thus it is produced from an external source as a type of reaction based against perceived knowledge of a worker’s psychological condition. Understanding what drives positive attitudes, energies and dedication to meeting organizational goals is at the very foundation of motivation and consists of personality, fear responses, and personal demand for empowerment in key environments. The method of creating a more motivational environment depends on the individualist values held by the employee related to these ideas or emotions. Understanding the psychology Wang & Erdheim (2007, pp.1494) describe the elements of the big five personality traits that include neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to new experiences. Sociability is measured in extraversion, emotional stability is associated with neuroticism, conscientiousness supported by concepts of goal-attainment and dependability (Wang & Erdheim). Each concept is associated with internal dynamics of personality that relate to whether or not an individual adjusts effectively or is responsive to external stimuli. Herzberg (1968, p.2) describes motivation from the perception of a pet and its master. “The dog wants the biscuit, but it is I who want it to move. I am the one who is motivated, and the dog is the one who moves”. Herzberg describes motivations in terms of incentives or promotions as a means to drive productivity, however the responses that are formulated against this extrinsic reward style are borne of personality factors and individual beliefs associated with reward. Of the big five personality dimensions offered, agreeableness is represented by “emotional support needs, caring, and nurturance” (Erdheim & Wang, p.1495). This is why externally-driven incentive rewards inspire higher levels of performance as they build on self-confidence and other foundational needs associated with security and belonging. The consequences or outcomes of this motivation are unique depending on the ambitions or goals of the organizational environment or leadership. According to Margaret Wheatley (1997, p.1), “organizations of all kinds are cluttered with control mechanisms that paralyze employees and leaders alike…these mechanisms seem to derive from our fear (or) our fear of one another”. Control systems are associated with typical models of management such as the Theory X management style that believes individuals need to be motivated with a strong voice or a harsh hand. Though regulated by certain government restrictions on control behavior, authoritarian posturing achieves results. The question is not whether it is derived from extrinsically-driven incentives or motivations, it is whether or not the employee is responsive based on their individual needs or personality structures. A manager with high levels of controls exhibits a sense of fear that is associated with loss (or fear of loss) such as formal reprimands for losing one’s position and therefore prompts new actions after rationalizing the impact on lifestyle. When a manager is able to control others through stricter policies and activities, there is no sense of empowerment or the production of a mutually-rewarding cultural or job-related environment. “Psychologically empowered workers are necessary to maintain the experiential process of learning and innovation” (Doll, 2010, p.54). So, there is a disparity between different management techniques designed to bring about results. The literature suggests that there must be sense of value instilled through empowerment strategies or the production of an autonomous work environment that inspires in order to gain competitive edge or produce new innovations whatever their form or objective might fulfill. The idea of empowerment as a strategy is based on understandings of internal psychological dimensions and only then can a series of extrinsically-driven motivations be created against it. For example, a personality type that is not agreeable and might be foundationally neurotic as proposed by the five-factor personality model, and therefore more concerned with the creation of empowerment strategies or a caring, fostering environment. An individual who is more conscientious might not require the authoritarian hand of a stricter management style and therefore always be focused on producing quality outcomes based on their own individual self-concept and ethical programming. Personality is defined as “an individual’s pattern of psychological processes arising from feelings, thoughts and other major areas of psychological function” (Mayer, 2005, p.44). It is expressed through the individual’s socialization behaviors (Mayer). In some organizations where there is a tight and unified organizational culture, the behavior of others in the business determine whether or not team-based goals are achieved and conflict is reduced. When the individual is less agreeable and less extroverted, there is likelihood that their foundational personality traits will dictate a more reserved and less hospitable attitude toward the social environment. In this case, a series of extrinsically-driven strategies are required to combat this foundational attitude and belief system. Where nurturing and tolerance might drive another worker to achieve high performance outcomes, this individual might require a distanced management style that allows for more individual working environments and not expected to be as team-focused as other colleagues and peers. Whatever strategy is required, the concept of motivation differs depending on the foundational psychological principles that guide day-to-day behavior of the individual. Abraham Maslow’s renowned and somewhat elementary view of needs describes a hierarchy that an individual follows forward as particular, lower-level needs have been met. The foundational needs include a sense of security, belonging, and the development of self-esteem as a higher need only achievable once these issues of security and social networking have been developed and fulfilled. According to Steffens, 2010, p.1), “If a single firm, or only a limited number of firms, possess a resource that is impossible or costly to imitate, competitors find themselves at a disadvantage”. When this is a true reality of the organizational environment, the business needs to focus on human capital development and take advantage of exploiting this resource. To maintain control over this unique resource, employees require a motivational strategy to ensure they can provide sustainable competitive advantage. They must be motivated to achieve above-average performance equal to the limited resource problem. In this case, foundational self-esteem development is inappropriate and might only require ensuring work security as a means to keep the individual focused on resource exploitation. Rather than allowing their motivations to spread to less key resource issues, dedication is the goal in this type of environment. Security can be created simply through the production and promotion of this limited resource, served as a reminder that dissatisfaction with the organizational environment and intention to leave would provide no replication of what currently resides at this business. A manager that recognizes certain individuals are more neurotic, therefore anxious or emotional unstable in the face of crisis, might capitalize on this neuroticism and ensure the employee senses a perception of stress over job abandonment or utilize strategies from common models such as game theory to reinforce a sense of depression over the concern of losing a treasured and difficult-to-replicate resource. Again, it is based on personality factors that are associated with the individual and therefore the evidence seems to support that there is a need to use individualized strategies that appeal to internal needs and personality structures to gain motivational response and higher performance outcomes. Some organizations use pay-for-performance schemes as a means to improve motivational responses and dedication to achieving organizational goals. However, a recent survey of organizational leaders identified that only 13 percent had opted for merit-based increases and, rather, had formulated across-the-board increases for the entire organizational population (Williams, 2009). This shows a lack of understanding about internal dimensions of behavior and personality in favor of an easier and certainly less effective pay scheme. This shows the worker that there is no supplementary reward for their own dedication as compared to a lesser-performing worker, and therefore does not provide a nurturing environment, appeal to emotional support needs, only an assertiveness that all employees should be rewarded equally. Neurotic personality types or less conscientious workers would likely consider these strategies to be unworthy of further effort and dedication, accept their developed reward in equal proportion to colleague groups, and continue about a moderate performance strategy. Again, this reinforces that there must be knowledge about individual beliefs and how the employee reacts against certain social or environmental stimuli and then creating a strategy that appeals to only one and then developing a secondary or contingent strategy for another employee. Conclusion Motivating an employee in the pursuit of gaining higher performance outcomes or achieving a sense of organizational loyalty must start with the foundational values and beliefs of the individual. In a diverse organizational environment, there are going to be employees that have more extraverted tendencies and those who prefer autonomous working environments, as two examples. Using strategies that appeal to socialization or ongoing communications between leadership and the employee will likely meet with resistance if the individual scores low on these personality factors. To achieve extrinsically-based strategies for performance needs, it starts with understanding individual behavior and attitude first and foremost. References Erdheim, J. & Wang, M. (2007). “Does the Five-Factor Model of Personality Relate to Goal Orientation?”, Personality and Individual Differences. 43(6), pp.1493-1505. Doll, William J. (2010). “A Technology Empowerment Model for Engineering Work”, Database for Advances in Information Systems. 41(4), pp.52-74. Herzberg, Frederick. (1968). “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees”?, Harvard Business Review Classic. Retrieved April 4, 2011 from http://gaounion.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/196801-02-hbr-herzberg-article-on-motivation.pdf Mayer, J. D. (2005). “A Classification of DSM-IV-TR Mental Disorders According to their Relation to the Personality System”. In J.C. Thomas & D.L. Segal (eds), Comprehensive Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology: Personality and Everyday Functioning. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Steffens, Gregory. (2010). “Strategic Management Models”. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from http://www.gaebler.com/Strategic-Management-Models.htm Wheatley, Margaret. (1997). “Goodbye, Command and Control”, Victor Valley College. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from http://www.vvc.edu/offices/president/wheatley_1997.pdf Williams, Nadia. (2009). “Performance-Related Pay Hit During Recession”, Personnel Today. November 3, p.23. Read More