Differing Insights for the Motivation of People - Case Study Example

Theories of Motivation Abraham Maslow is not officially known as the father of human motivation theory and his works are often criticized for being somewhat simplistic and less than scientific in his explanations of how actions relate to personality. However Maslow was the inspiration for other theorists who expanded and modified his ideas, leading to sophisticated ideas regarding these issues. This discussion briefly assesses Maslow’s motivation theories before examining theories by Herzberg (Motivator-Hygiene), Alderfer (ERG) and Vroom (Expectancy) and others while relating their respective usefulness concerning these differing insights for the motivation of people, primarily focusing on employee motivation. Abraham Maslow’s studies during the early 1940’s involving human personality and the motivations responsible for initiating action led him to organize a list of five levels which describes people’s most fundamental needs. These include, in order of importance, Physiological, Safety, Love, Esteem and Self-actualization. Physiology concerns bodily necessities including breath, thirst, hunger etc. Safety is the sense of security, such as the need for a worker to safeguard his family by keeping his job. Love describes the need to be accepted within a group and esteem refers to a sense of self-respect (Maslow, 1987). Self- actualization, according to Maslow, describes an individual’s personal growth and can occur only after the other four needs are fulfilled. As someone nears self-actualization, they are becoming increasingly astute and wise and are able to quickly realize the correct course regarding many types of everyday situations. “Maslow’s ultimate conclusion that the highest levels of self-actualization are transcendent in their nature may be one of his most important contributions to the study of human behavior and motivation” (Daniels, cited in Huitt, 2004). Maslow theorized that by attending to the low level needs first such as security and the need to belong, then providing self respect, employers could more effectively motivate workers. Twenty years following Maslow’s breakthrough work, Frederick Herzberg endeavored to determine the main factors that motivated employees building from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model. Herzberg’s research produced the motivator-hygiene theory concluding that employees could not be motivated to improve output by simply addressing the low-level needs; that this ideology serves only to motivate workers to begin seeking other employment rather than leading to a satisfactory and enjoyable job environment. He suggested that managers should consider low-level (hygiene needs) but put added emphasis on high-level (motivators) as well. (Herzberg, 1966). “Motivator or intrinsic factors, such as achievement and recognition, produce job satisfaction. Hygiene or extrinsic factors, such as pay and job security, produce job dissatisfaction” (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). Managers should conclude from Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory that satisfying a worker’s low-level needs by means of pay increases, bonuses or other inducements related to the job itself will not motivate them to be more creative, work harder or increase their amount of loyalty. According Herzberg’s theory, workers are motivated when management alters the inherent makeup of job responsibilities by allowing and encouraging employees to make independent decisions and to be creative without the fear of retribution for making mistakes. Managers should also recognize employees for work well done and work with them in meaningful ways to develop their talents and further their perception of a satisfying career. Literature show that satisfied workers tend to be self motivated and self motivated behaviors exceed the formal requirements of a job. In contrast, dissatisfied workers show an increased tendency for counterproductive behaviors (i.e. withdrawals, burnout, and workplace aggression). Moreover the behavior of the employees who are not satisfied, may impact negatively on their performance, as well as those around them. Many studies have been conducted to identify the factors affecting job satisfaction; still there is no agreement among researchers about the factors affecting job satisfaction. There are many things that can be done to provide satisfactory working conditions, but there is no guarantee that better working conditions will lead to job satisfaction; but at least it can encourage the development of job satisfaction. management should try to make arrangements to facilitate the working style or mode of working of the employees, which leads to better job satisfaction (for instance: If an employee wants to do filing work at the end of the day, the supervisor should not force him/her to do that job immediately but let him/her work according to his/her own way). Moreover employees should be able to understand where they fit into the organization. They should know the importance of what they do, how it affects other people and other parts of the business, and what are the effects of their performance on the other employees of the organization. Therefore job satisfaction is related to employees’ current work situation and it depends on many factors such as work environmental factors and personal factors. Personal factors like the educational level, certification level, continuing educational credits, years of experience, and perceived competence (self-efficacy) and environmental factors like, social factors of the job, professional job environment, and type of job (whether interesting or not) , job stress are related to job satisfaction. Job performance has a significant effect on job satisfaction is supported by Intrinsic Motivation Theory. However, from an organization’s point of view, it may be difficult to differentiate between effort and job performance. Mostly effort is different from the output, as an employee might be working hard, but the performance as output may not be as desired. (Locke, 1976). Locke understood job satisfaction to be the result of the interaction between the individual and his work environment. A theory of goal setting is based on the idea that human behavior is influenced by values or goals. It also maintains that the intent to work toward goals is an important determinant of people’s motivation. Therefore, achievement of a goal produces satisfaction, whereas inability to achieve goals result in dissatisfaction. This also indicates that improved performance produces greater satisfaction. Locke describes the attributes of goal setting as comprising: Goal specificity leading to precision and clarity; Goal difficulty referring to the degree of proficiency or the level of performance that is sought; Goal intensity referring to the process of setting the goal or determining how to reach it (Locke, 1976). Although several studies support a goal setting theory, some question as to whether it should be considered a theory of motivation or a motivational technique. Clayton Alderfer, in response to Maslow’s theory, recognized three distinct types of core human needs that have an effect on an employee’s personal growth and job performance. According to Alderfer’s theory, commonly referred to as the ERG theory, motivational needs do not require a pre-determined progression upward on a pyramid of stepped categories. Instead of the five categories of needs as suggested by Maslow, Alderfer suggested three classifications instead including existence, relatedness, and growth. The three core needs that a person attempts to nourish include “obtaining his material existence needs, maintaining his interpersonal relatedness with significant other people, and seeking opportunities for his unique personal development and growth” (Alderfer, 1969). Although built upon Maslow’s theory, Alderfer holds a different view in that he hypothesized that “all needs are simultaneously active and thus, prepotency does not play as major a role in his theory as it does in Maslow’s” (Lawler & Suttle, 1972). The implications of Alderfer’s ERG theory to management are somewhat comparable to Maslow’s hierarchal needs in that managers should concentrate on satisfying workers’ material needs for existence, foster and encourage interactive personal relationships with all members in an employment setting and nurture their desires for intellectual and creative growth. Alderfer’s concept of growth needs is more ambiguous, contains many more facets and is harder to describe and understand than are relatedness needs. Relatedness needs are themselves less concrete than existence needs which refer to life and death matters. Alderfer refers to the phrase ‘higher order’ in his theory but not in the same sense as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He instead means that the need which is more concrete in description and thus understanding is higher in order. Alderfer indicates three guidelines in the higher order of his ERG theory. First, a need is more wanted the less it has been satisfied – a simple, obvious concept. Second, the desire to want to supplement lower needs becomes greater as the higher needs remain unsatisfied. In other words, if a need is not satisfied, a person will attempt to fulfill needs that are more tangible in nature. Third, as lower needs are satisfied, a person will seek needs that are higher in the order. This occurs because as a person is freed from concentrating on basic needs of existence, they have the energy to focus on the higher needs of growth and relatedness. According to the ERG theory, the manager’s responsibility within a corporation is to provide the proper resources and support to enable his workers in this pursuit. Alderfer performed a study so as to compare his ERG theory against Maslow’s theory involving a survey of 110 bank employees of various job titles and duties. He discovered that “none of the satisfaction scales, formed by summing the individual items, showed significant correlations… in the direction predicted by Maslow’s theory” (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). The Vroom contingency theory dictates that employees are motivated based upon rewards. A worker’s performance level is determined by a system that rewards positive behaviors and punishes negative. The more positive the reward the more likely the employee will be highly motivated. Conversely, the more negative the reward the less likely the employee will be motivated (Vroom, 1964). Victor Vroom’s studies indicate that workers will more readily opt to display a positive behavior at work because the outcome will be positive and thus more satisfying to their basic needs. When deciding the degree of energy they will devote to their positive output and behavior at work, people will contemplate three aspects of their needs. First, their expectancy, in other words, what’s the payoff? How much effort it would take to attain the desired performance level. Second is instrumentality, or how much effort is necessary to warrant a reward that was worth the initial effort and the likelihood the boss will deliver on the promise, whether expressed or implied. Finally, the valence, or the decision-making process that determines whether or not the reward is considered positive or negative to the worker. According to Vroom, “the choices made by persons among alternative courses of action are lawfully related to psychological events occurring contemporaneously within the behavior” (Vroom, 1964). To put it another way, the way a worker acts toward his job is dictated by inherent psychological principles. These facets of Vroom’s theory, expectancy, instrumentality and valence are likely to impact motivation on many levels of human psychology. For a worker to become greatly motivated, all three facets of Vroom’s theory must be addressed and maintained through company policy and by the managers. If just one of Vroom’s ingredients is low, for example, if valence and instrumentality are high, but expectancy is low, the worker will not have sufficient motivation to do the best job they are capable of. For this reason, managers must endeavor by every means possible to make certain that the employees in their charge realize greater efforts on their part will indeed lead to improved job performance and this raised performance level will result in rewards they value. Of the theories discussed, though all are at least loosely based on Maslow’s original theory, Vroom’s Contingency Theory, which is built on both earlier motivational theories, is the easiest to understand and therefore probably the most effective yet is implemented by too few managers. It is imperative for the manager to understand that if the worker does not know in what direction to expend their efforts successfully, they could expend significant amounts of effort without realizing a greater rise in their performance level and thus not reap a reward for their efforts. This situation will lead to frustration and undermine all other motivational efforts. Motivation in the workplace requires that both management and employees communicate so the manager is aware of their particular needs, but the manager must also be willing to address and nurture these needs for these motivational techniques to be successful. References Alderfer, C P. (1969). “An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol 4, pp. 142-175. Campbell, J P & Pritchard, R D. (1976). “Motivation Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.”  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. M D Dunnette (Ed.) Chicago, Rand McNally. Dunnette, M.D. & Hough, L.M. (Eds.). (1990). Organizational Psychology. 2nd Ed., Vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Herzberg, E. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Huitt, W. (2004). “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved January 17, 2008 from Lawler, E E & Suttle, J L. (1972). “A Causal Correlational Test of the Need Hierarchy Concept.”  Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.  Vol. 7, pp 265-287. Locke, E. A. (1976). “The nature and causes of job satisfaction” In M. D. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and Personality. 3rd Ed., Vol. 1. New York: Harper Collins. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley. Read More