Workplace Motivation Techniques - Assignment Example

Workplace Motivation Techniques Introduction Employee motivation can be a complicated task for managers and companies due to the multiplicity of incentives that can influence employee performance and productivity. This essay attempts to determine the types of incentives and motivation factors that can promote employee creativity and performance in a company. Monetary incentives Monetary incentives have been shown to be effective in employee motivation and in improving task performance. Perry and Mesch reviewed several papers on employee motivation and found that organisation behavioral intervention through the use of monetary incentives improved the performance of tasks by 23% (Perry and Mesch 505). Their review also indicated that social recognition improved performance by 17% while feedback improved task performance by only 10%. All three factors when combined improved performance by 45%. Perry and Mesch concluded that feedback combined with social recognition and monetary incentives produced the most desirable effect on performance (Perry and Mesch 505). Perry and Mesch investigated motivational interventions in service and manufacturing industries and found that performance improvements were larger in manufacturing than in service industries (Perry and Mesch 506). While financial, non-financial and social rewards produced the strongest effect in manufacturing organizations, financial reinforcement produced a stronger effect on task performance in service industries. Ventrice in his research on effects of motivational intervention on performance found that financial incentives significantly affected performance quantity but not quality (Ventrice 122). He, however, found that the type of task did not affect the relationship between financial incentives and performance quality. Other researchers found that goal setting and monetary incentives influence performance independently. Perry and Mesch in their work on incentives found that merit pay resulted in positive outcomes especially for individuals but different institutional arrangements affected the feasibility and effectiveness of merit pay (Perry and Mesch para10). They concluded that merit pay was at best moderately effective. Carroll, on the other hand, found that merit and pay-for-performance systems were ineffective in the public sector as they had little positive impact on employee motivation and organizational performance (Carroll 67). He attributed this result to insufficient fund allocation for merit pay and the lack of managerial and organizational characteristics necessary for an effective pay-for-performance system in the public sector. Group incentives Group incentives are characterized by a reward system where a portion of individual pay is contingent on a measurable group performance. Ventrice in his study of group incentives found that equally divided small group incentives sustained high levels of productivity and satisfaction for group members and that group incentives were equally effective compared to individual incentives with groups of 2 to 10 (Ventrice 145). Alternative pay systems such as profit-sharing and gain-sharing plans that link employees’ financial rewards to improvement of the performance of the work unit were found to be associated with both improvements in organizational performance and higher productivity especially in the private sector. Job design Job design entails incorporating motivating characteristics that stimulate psychological states among employees leading to an increase in desired personal and work outcomes. Job design and alternative work schedules were found to be effective in improving performance. One such study on the effect of job redesign found a median impact of 6.4% on improved productivity and 28% on work quality. Job redesign was also credited for the reduction in turnover and absenteeism as well as an increase in job satisfaction, organizational commitment, productivity and work quality (Ventrice 156). Perry and Mesch in their review of motivational techniques found that job redesign influenced attitudes towards work more than behavioral outcomes (Perry and Mesch 511). A possible explanation of this observation is that measuring performance is a more complicated task and that performance is more variable across contexts than affective or attitude outcomes. Perry and Mesch are in agreement with the assertion that successful job redesign requires a rigorous process where implementers identify the nature of the problem and assess the efficacy of manipulating job characteristics (Perry and Mesch para15). Such an effort should mitigate underlying problems, and ascertain the context to ensure that threats to success are eliminated. Participation Employee participation involves engaging employees in decision making or influence sharing between employees and managers. Typically, employee participation involves senior managers providing visible extra roles or role expanding opportunities for groups and individuals at lower levels in an organisation in order to give them a greater voice in the organization's performance. Several literature reviews by different researchers suggest that participation has a positive effect on affective attachment to the organisation but has minimal effect on performance (Ventrice 170). Participation leads to a higher level of satisfaction with the organizational processes and decisions thereby reinforcing employee commitment to the organisation. Shared decision making improves employee satisfaction with the decisions made and the mechanisms used in making such decisions. Thus, participation strengthens employees’ commitment to decisions and cultivates a sense of justice in the process. However, the climate of participation and the perception that one’s input is considered may have a stronger impact on employee satisfaction (Hiam 240). While participation is linked to positive attitudes, it has a limited positive impact on employee performance. Hiam in his work on employee participation notes that numerous contextual factors influence the relationship between participation and performance (Hiam 246). For example, organizational factors like organisation size, quality of existing working relationships, task complexity and leadership skills may negatively affect the relationship between participation and performance. Individual moderating factors such as lack of employee support for the process, lack of knowledge by employees and low levels of employee motivation can negatively affect the outcome of participation. The fact that many organizations introduce participation interventions simultaneously with other interventions makes it difficult to isolate the impact of participation on performance (Hiam 214). One outstanding outcome of participation is the production of better decisions. Participation improves information and knowledge sharing necessary for high-quality decision making. In the process of participation, individuals who might not normally share information may share it with others even of lower hierarchy. Employee participation can also be structured in a way that employees who are highly skilled in the job are encouraged to become more involved in decision making leading to a higher quality of decisions and more creative responses (Hiam 215). Goal setting Conscious and articulately specified goals defined as the aim of an action to achieve a particular level of performance positively affects the performance of employees. Several researchers concur that goal setting increases individual, group and work unit performance. In particular, there is strong research evidence that specific challenging tasks contribute to higher levels of performance than systems with no goals or where goals are not defined. On the other hand, narrow goals, multiple or conflicting goals might decrease performance. Hiam in his work suggested that a model of work motivation and satisfaction where challenging and specific tasks were identified and tackled inspired high performance (Hiam 106). This, in turn, led to increased rewards, greater satisfaction and a stronger commitment to the organisation. However, the relationship between the goals set and measures of performance is determined by the contextual factors of the working environment including employee characteristics and task structure (Hiam 109). Latham in his work on employee motivation found that participants with do-your-best or difficult goals together with a need for creativity were more likely to demonstrate high levels of creativity and efficiency, whereas employees with only a goal for productivity were less creative (Latham 289). Where tasks are complex, setting learning goals may be the best strategy. This is because challenging goals can stimulate high performance and complexity that comes with some goals can act as a motivational challenge. Where the tasks are complicated, setting difficult goals may cause a decrease performance, whereas setting do-your-best goals or goals that encourage employees to explore different strategies to tackle tasks may improve performance (Latham 267). The experience and knowledge of an employee together with the skills required to complete a task influence goal performance relationship. Perry and Mesch in their review established that goals provide an important tool for stimulating staff to develop strategies for attaining desired results. Where employees were tackling complex issues, learning goals not only enhanced employee mastery of the task, but also created an atmosphere that promoted continual problem solving and knowledge sharing within the organisation (Dell 198). Challenging and difficult goals are especially performance enhancing when committed employees give input, receive feedback and receive incentives for achieving them. Though participation in goal setting may not influence performance directly, participation may influence employee commitment to goals and induce employees to set even more difficult targets, both of which lead to higher performance. Even though, research evidence suggests that external rewards do not strengthen the relationship between goals and productivity, the presence of rewards may enhance the employee’s perception of the importance of the goals and increase their commitment to the set targets (Dell 156). Dell reports that individuals with high levels of self-efficiency usually set high personal targets and achieve excellence without external prods (Dell 5). People with high self-efficacy exhibit high commitment to assigned goals, invent strategies to attain them and are more positively when responding to criticism than people with low-efficacy. Since the role of self-efficacy diminishes as employees learn their job, it is important for managers to understand their subordinates before employing a one-size-fits-all prescription for motivation (Dell 9). Managers who want to ensure that challenging goals are set and met should try to improve employee abilities to perform, and notify them on the results of their efforts. To boost employees’ commitment to their targets managers should build self confidence by ensuring that tasks are difficult but not too complex. To encourage participation in goal setting, it is important for managers to ensure that employees are already highly engaged in the work place decision making (Hiam 237). Finally, in a study of the most influential factors for employee motivation in a Reno based company, Thomas found that employees wanted better communication with their immediate managers and the company as a whole (Thomas 134). They expressed a desire to know their performance and where they needed to improve on. Thomas, therefore, concluded that an increase in communication quality would lead to an increase in overall employee motivation (Thomas 123). Mastering the job was found to be a strong motivator of employees as they sought advancement in the company. Incentives to master the job linked to long-term incentives such as the opportunity for promotion were beneficial in influencing overall productivity. Thomas concluded that short-term financial incentives motivated employees to do what was successful in the past; this practice was not conducive for creativity (Thomas 125). Conclusion Employee motivation is dependent on several factors some which are financial incentives, participation in decision making and goal setting. Financial incentives though necessary are not effective alone as they only improve the quantity and not quality of performance. Conversely, a combination of different incentives and interventions was found to be most effective in employee motivation. Goals should be employee and context specific for them to be effective. Works cited: Dell, Twyla. Motivation at work: empowering employees to give their best. Boston, MA: Thomson/Course Technology, 1993. Print. Latham, Gary. Work motivation: history, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007. Print. Carroll, Michael. Workplace counselling: a systematic approach to employee care. London: Thousand Oaks, Calif, 1999. Print. Hiam, Alexander. Motivational management: inspiring your people for maximum performance. New York; Toronto: AMACOM, American Management Association, 2003. Print. Thomas, Kenneth. Intrinsic motivation at work: building energy and commitment. San Francisco, Calif.: Berrett-Koehler, 2002. Print. Ventrice, Cindy. Make their day! : Employee recognition that works. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, cop. 2003. Print. Perry, James and Mesch, Debra. Motivating employees in the new governance era: the performance paradigm revisited. Retrieved on 13 Feb 2013 from: http://glennschool.osu.edu/faculty/brown/home/810/Class%20Materials/Perry.pdf Read More