Studies of Employee Motivation - Essay Example

Motivation Introduction: Management experts, practitioners, and business would universally agree that employees are one of the most important assets of an organization. The management of the organization is responsible for the welfare of its employees and in return can loyalty, productivity, and quality with regards to their tasks, duties and responsibilities. There are many factors crucial for optimum or at least good employee performance. One of the most important among them is employee motivation. Traditional approaches in this field only identified monetary compensation as a motivating factor. This can be seen in traditional management theories of Taylor and Gilbreth. But modern behaviourist theories and studies now state that employee motivation is not a simple monetary based one. They state that several psychological and social factors are involved in the whole process. This paper looks at the theories and studied of employee motivation and will apply them to the practices in the plant maintenance department (PMD) of the Bahrain Petroleum Company (BAPCO). The particular company was chosen because this writer is employed in the said department. The current approach to employee motivation is that it is a complex matter and is influenced by forces. An approach 9whether it is social or psychological) that works in a particular situation may not work in another. The mindsets of the employees, their culture and a host of other factors have to be taken into consideration in this context. In other words, the human mind whether at home, within the society or within the workplace is complex. One person may be motivated by one set of wants and needs, while another may be motivated by a totally different set. Hence the paper will review a whole range of relevant theories and studies in order to achieve its aim. Historical background of BAPCO: BAPCO is one of the major companies in the Kingdom of Bahrain and the only of its business like, which is the petroleum refining. It was first established back on 1929 and continued until present time producing a wide range of petroleum products. It was jointly owned by the Kingdom of Bahrain and Caltex till 1997, when full ownership was transferred to the government. BAPCO participate largely in the economy of Bahrain and it employ around 3,000 employees distributed between upstream, the oil production, and downstream, the oil refining. BAPCO is a vibrant and energetic company playing a key role in the development of young Bahrainis. Organizational background and structure: Training in craft and technical skills has been at the centre of this activity inside the company, and outside through the skills for the workplace programmer which was organized in collaboration with the ministry of labour. The Two year programmer, which concluded in May 2008, fulfilled the company vision of creating a pool of talented Bahraini technicians to meet the ever-growing needs of the local industries. Developing young graduates to become the manager of the future has been a pressing concern for the company. BAPCO also supports other major leadership and mentoring programmers, such as the prestigious Crown Prince international scholarship programmer, by providing funding for scholarship, mentors and on the job training opportunities. BAPCO aiming to maintained a strong relationship with its employees through the trade union, and overall spirit of cooperation. This harmonious has resulted in constructive resolution of individual and company wide issues through regular negotiation meeting An overview of employee motivation: According to Gunkel, the word motivation is a derivative of the Latin word ‘movere’ that means ‘to move’. The association could be intended to mean that an employee’s attitudes work has to be moved from a negative or neutral standpoint to a positive one. Quoting Robbins, the author defines (employee) motivation as follows – “The willingness to exert high levels of effort towards organizational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual need” (Gunkel 2006, p.21). The definition clearly states two aspects here namely the ability of an effort that will bring about a certain rewards which is different from individual to individual. Gunkel further states that there are three types of motivation in general, namely basic, intrinsic, and extrinsic ones. Basic motivation refers to those factors that satisfy basic needs of an individual, like food, security, and money. Intrinsic motivation is basically psychological in nature. It cannot be seen or exactly measured. For example, an employee likes to work outdoors, and providing a desk job for such a person would be de-motivating. Most employees like to be complimented and praised for a job well-done. Good managers can make use of this intrinsic factor to motivate employees. Extrinsic motivation can be seen or measured. Performance based rewards are examples of such motivation. It can be seen later in this paper, that many theories and studies refer to the above factors and its importance in motivation. Gunkel provides the steps or process involved in attaining of motivation by employees. In intrinsic and basic motivation process, the step starts with an preson’s preferences which is an unsatisfied need. What this points out is that only an unsatisfied need is the key to motivation. Any person who does not have any need (fully satisfied) will be next to impossible to motivate. The person may have basic needs which have been satisfied through a job. But if he does not have any other forms of needs, then he will not be motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors. Once he sees that the need or gaol is attainable through the performance of his job, he will be motivated to do a good job for the attainment of that need or goal. In the case of extrinsic motivation, one more step, namely the actual reward comes in before goal attainment. For example, the employee will actually receive a bonus check (which is extrinsic) and only then will his goal attainment becomes complete. Studies suggest that employees use self-perception in order to understand why they are motivated by certain factors. According to an Encyclopaedia Britannica article, “self-perception theory, suggests that all individuals analyse their own behaviour much as an outside observer might and, as a result of these observations, make judgments about why they are motivated to do what they do” (Petri 2010). Buchanan and Huczynski define what perception is in their highly valued text book on organizational behaviour. According to the authors, “the dynamic psychological process responsible for attending to organising and interpreting sensory data” need to be taken into account (Buchanan and Huczynski 2004, p.214). The authors also state that just as there are factors that motivate people, other varied factors in the workplace may actually de-motivate people. They give two very different scenarios. One is the study of frequent breakdowns in the computer system in a Swedish company. There was no possible way for employee to know when the systems will be up and running again. They had to wait till the problem cleared without doing anything in the meantime. This caused a lot of stress apart from backlog of work to be completed. Another factor mentioned was where an employee is entrusted with a jog that is repetitive and has low levels of discretion. This entails that the job is boring and everyone knows what the employ is doing and expected to do. Buchanan and Huczynski state that such jobs do not cater to the higher level needs of an employee. Both these varied situations can be de-motivating to employees. The matter of higher level needs will be discussed again in later sections of this paper. All this entails a perception of the needs, and the motivating (and de-motivating) factors by an employee through interpreting through sensory data. Such observations about motivation show how complex it can be for managers to motivate people. Taylor’s scientific management theory and motivation: Taylor’s observations about management and work practices made huge impression during the time his theory of scientific management was published. He changed the arbitrary or rule of thumb practices (lack of standardization or scientific approach) adopted by organizations of the time. Each organization had their own ways of management and production which was very wasteful by modern day standards and Taylor could bring about a great change in this regard. Taylor brought in some rules that are even followed today. His approach required a strong hierarchy of command, responsibility, compensation based on productivity, separation of planning and other processes, and specialization of labour. He also brought in the concept of management by exception where routine matters were left to low and middle level management and only exceptional matters were brought to the attention of the top management. Many of his concepts are still in use today thought not necessarily in its original form. Taylor assumed that all employees are motivated to maximize their earnings and will work harder if paid accordingly. Taylor sees workers as machines and does not take into consideration other motivating factors like empowerment, praise, and job satisfaction. But his many concepts on production is now seen in concepts like TQM and Kaizen which focuses on maximizing performance with minimal wastage of resources. The Style approach: Leadership models can be classified on the basis of the style followed by leaders. It will be individualistic and be based on the leader’s own values, beliefs and experience. Two prominent models reviewed here are those propounded by Kurt Lewin and Rensis Likert. Kurt Lewin’s model: Kurt Lewin was influential in the area of leadership and more prominently his contribution towards managing organizational change. With regard to leadership, Lewin put forth three types of leadership styles that are commonly seen even today. They are autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire models and their titles are self-explanatory. An autocratic leader will not be open to suggestions and will only be giving orders. He will in most cases working without a team and the whole organization will be under his direct control. There will be little or no empowerment among the employees. Such styles which are rare in large organizations is seen in sole-proprietorships and very small businesses. It is also quite effective when dealing with first rung employees (workers in the factory for example). There are two main reasons here. One is that it is difficult to manage large organizations alone, and the other is the influence of human relationship based approach in management. Democratic leaders will be team oriented and will be open to suggestions. A large degree of freedom and empowerment will be provided to different levels of management. This style of leadership is favoured (and practical) by most managers and leaders today, especially in larger organizations. Laissez-faire leaders do not interfere in any activities of the subordinates. In other words, it is a hand off approach and everything is left to the subordinates to manage the affairs of the company. This approach will work mostly in instances where the employees are highly qualified, efficient, and motivated. A research team conducting scientific experiment is an instance where this type of approach will work. But there is a new approach developed by Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey called situational leadership. It simply states that there is no style that can be applied in all situations, and leaders have to use different styles in different contexts. For example, a departmental head can adopt an autocratic approach when dealing with first level workers and a democratic approach with his managers. Rensis Likert model: Likert also developed a style based approach and classifies it into exploitive authoritative, benevolent authoritative, consultative, and participative models of leadership. Exploitative authoritative is more like the autocratic approach, but here the workers are exploited. A stick approach and not a carrot one is used here and threats and inducing fear are common. Benevolent authoritative can also be likened to benevolent dictatorship. In both cases authority remains fully with the leader, but only the treatment varies. Likert only states about autocracy which can also be benevolent or exploitative in nature. A consultative leader is open to suggestions and ideas, but decision will still be centralized with him. It is a step nearer to the participative approach which is similar to the democratic style in Likert’s model. A leader is open to approach from all sections of the workforce and is highly team based. Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum: Here again, the concepts put forward are similar to the above theories with regard to style. One major difference is that there is no tight classification as put forth by other theorists seen above. The authors apparently provide a foundation which necessitates a balance between increased delegation and increased responsibility. A leader can make his job easier if many tasks and responsibilities are delegated. But he is also responsible for the actions of his subordinates. Tannenbaum and Schmidt do not specifically adhere to any specific style, but simply states that the leader is ultimately responsible for the actions of subordinates. In fact, the grid presented by them encompasses the whole area between autocratic and laissez-faire styles, but which stress that the leader is ultimately responsible. In this grid, the four factors that come into play are tells, sells, consults, and joins. Tells is more autocratic in nature of an autocratic leader, who informs subordinates why a decision and course of action has been taken. The concept of ‘sell’, states that the leader decides upon a course of action and sells the idea to his subordinates. There is either direction or participation. This is a major factor since no such theories include the concept of selling as a function or part of leadership. In fact, sales is an important factor in success in any setting. According to Pickens, “everyone is a salesman to a degree and most people don’t realize it” (Pickens 1989, 17). Any leader who is a good salesman can get across his idea effectively in a democratic, participative, and laissez-faire style thereby making his job easier with regard to achieving organizational goals. Consults and joins are two elements that are seen in democratic models of Lewin or the consultative/ participative model of Likert. An illustration of how the theory works along with the steps involved is given below. (Faculty, The College of St Scholastica, n.d.) The diagram is self-explanatory. The arrows and the steps outlined below it show the steps that are involved in the continuum. It also indicates that the level of freedom provided will depend on the circumstances of each environment. It is often said that a research team resents close supervision; hence the ideal situation would be high freedom and low supervision. In the case of employees at the shop floor, providing too much freedom may not be productive. Motivation theories: In a sense, most theories of leadership have the concept of motivation in various degrees embedded in it. For example, Taylor feels that everyone is motivated to maximise earnings which is only true to a certain extent. Many theorists have since argued that while motivation is an important factor in performance, money is not the most important factor in encouraging optimal performance from followers. Maslow and Herzberg have propounded two theories that are primarily based on factors that motivate or de-motivate people with regard to employment. Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory: Maslow was one of the pioneers in understanding that employees are motivated by many factors other than monetary gains. In his paper titled ‘A theory of human motivation’ Maslow puts across five specific factors that motivate employees in order of importance during the various stages of his or her career. The term hierarchy is given since needs change in importance during various stages in the career of the employee. Studies by famous sociologists and psychologists such as Freud, Wertheimer, Goldstein, Dewey, and Gestalt have been applied in formulating this theory (Maslow n.d.). Those needs that are seen during the lifetime of an employee are physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self esteem needs, and self-actualisation needs. Physiological or biological needs pertain to the basic needs of man and include the need for food, and shelter. These needs are the starting point in the hierarchy (Maslow 1943, P. 370). Once these needs are satisfied, the need for safety in life becomes important. These two are primary needs and once obtained, social recognition from peers, superiors and others in the society becomes important. The need to feel accepted as a part of the company and society is a factor here. The next need in the hierarchy is self-esteem and includes factors like praise, achievement, challenge, promotions etc. The highest in the hierarchy is self-actualization, which is a fully mental need. Self-satisfaction and the need for personal fulfilment dominate this feeling. Maslow states that these needs are hierarchical and the top order needs become dominant only when the lower ones are fulfilled. Of course this hierarchy may not be the same in every individual. For example, a scientist may not see social needs as important and may skip it and look for self-actualisation. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: Douglas Mc Gregor’s theory can be both a style and motivational approach because he provides two styles that can motivate (or de-motivate) employees. In it, he provides two approaches (X and Y), the former traditional approach which de-motivates, and latter modern approach which leads to motivation. It is the duty of the management to link tasks with rewards so that people will work towards attainment of organizational objectives (Mc Gregor 1960, p. 61). Theory X approach states that people are lazy, they needs strong control and direction, is not comfortable with responsibility, and is un-ambitious. Theory Y approaches employees, as having ambition, willing to learn and accept responsibility, relish challenges, is imaginative and creative, and is motivated by the type of jobs and tasks (job satisfaction). Herzberg’s two factor theory: Herzberg explains employee motivation through two factors namely hygiene and motivation (job dissatisfaction and motivation respectfully). Those things that affect job dissatisfaction are poor working conditions, the level of supervision (freedom and empowerment), the way an employee is treated, the level job security, management policies, and relationship with colleagues and other employees in the organization. If these factors are favourable it results in removal of dissatisfaction, but will not result in motivation. The factors relevant for motivation are praise, recognitions, sense of achievement, liking of the job at hand, possibility of promotions, and challenge. If these factors are favourable, the employee is motivated. Modern day thinkers also agree to these views and the general opinion is that salary is only one of the factors that motivate employees. The book ‘The motivation to work’ provides a lucid example with regard to salary and equity of salary. The former is a motivating factor while the latter is a hygiene facto. Inequality can bring about dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman 1993, p. 116). Hawthorne experiments of Elton Mayo: This groundbreaking experiment during the 1920s was one of the pioneers in behavioural studies. Mayo states that his studies were anthropological in nature (Mayo 1925, p. 253). These studies probably brought forth the first observations in industrial psychology. The study consisted of a series of experiments at the Western Electrical Hawthorne Works in Chicago comprising a team of six girls engaged in assembling telephone relays. His earlier experiment with improved lighting conditions did not produce any significant results. In this second experiment, Mayo put an observer (not a supervisor) and experimented with different working patterns. For example, increasing rest periods during the work, introducing a piece-meal system, and shortening working hours increased productivity. But too many number of rest periods resulted in reduced production, the reason by being a break in flow. But the most surprising thing was that once the girls went back to their normal routine production was even higher than during the experiments. The most significant factor was that the girls had formed a team (the advantage of teamwork). Mayo’s studies were considered to be an important step towards understanding employee psychology and motivation. Vroom’s expectancy theory: Vroom states that performance of an employee is based on his or her expectancy of the rewards and the assessment of capability to perform a certain task. Three factors, namely expectancy, instrumentality, and valence are involved in productivity (Bogardus 2007, p. 36). Expectancy refers to the employees’ belief that the task can be completed and that higher productivity will lead to higher salary. Once this expectancy is in place, the employee will look at the reward that a particular job is offering. Valence is where the employee will then calculate whether the effort needed to complete the task is worth the reward offered. It could be construed that reward is not just related to monetary compensation, but can include other factors also. Apart from the factors mentioned by theorists like Herzberg and Maslow, some specific factors that motivate an employee are given below with regard to job satisfaction. Paul Spector sees job satisfaction as a combination of nine facets of factors for an employee. The first one is the monetary aspect or salary (Murray 1999, p.10). The employee will assess the amount as well as the fairness of the compensation scheme. The next facet is the possibility of advancement within the organization. The next one is the level of supervision within the organization. Another factor is the employee benefits like insurance, paid holidays, sickness benefits, and any other common practices in a particular industry or sector. The sixth facet includes factors like respect, appreciation, and praise. The employment policy within the organization will also have an impact on satisfaction. They include company rules, regulations, policies, and procedure followed. They also include factors like lack of transparency and red tape. The formal and informal organization environment is the eighth facet in job satisfaction. The nature or type of the job is also important. The ninth facet that will be considered is the level of communication within the organization. Management experts universally state that productivity and success is dependent on effective communication. What should be noted that these needs not be hierarchical and the importance given to each of the facets mentioned above may vary from employee to employee. According to Mathis and Jackson, loyal employees are usually satisfied employees, but they also have a very good relationship with their supervisors, managers and employers. The concept of commitment is also worth discussing. This is “the degree to which employees believe in and accept organizational goals and desire to remain with the organization” (Mathis & Jackson 2007, p. 71). It can be seen that apart from employee motivation, satisfaction, loyalty, commitment etc all factor in making employees happy and productive. In fact all these factors play a part in overall motivation of employees. It is a complex field and the management will need to be extremely creative for bringing in motivation across the entire workforce (or a majority of it). Application of theoretical knowledge in the PMD in BAPCO: A previous study regarding the effect of management style and behaviour had been conducted by this writer (in the PMD). Application of theory of motivation will be based on worker and employee perception data obtained from that study. Moreover, the experience (of this writer) gained by working in the department and general observations will also be used. The department has several levels in its hierarchy. The top post is that of the department manager. Superintendents work under his direct command and report to him. Supervisors for different tasks report to the superintendents. Plant engineers also reported to the superintendent. Technicians form the last level in this department. There are also clerks for administrative duties who report to the superintendents. In case of major problems, supervisors approach the engineer to rectify it. There is no official interaction between supervisors/technicians with clerks except for providing any data or information required for the purpose of performing respective duties. The plant was facing motivational problems and dissatisfaction especially among the middle and lower levels in the hierarchy. None of the employees had any problems with basic and extrinsic motivation (as mentioned by Gunkel). Many of the technicians (especially the younger ones) felt that their intrinsic motivation was low in the department mainly due to the attitude of the supervisors. A majority of the technicians were young and ambitious and chances of promotion and advancement were also limited. About half of the supervisors also felt the same way. The possibility of achieving their higher level of needs (self-actualisation) was limited. With regard to the other half (supervisors), most of them had been with the company for over ten years. They were either satisfied with safety needs or their higher level needs stopped motivating them. Engineers did have limited advancement opportunities and they had more options regarding working in other departments. The manager and the superintendents were also satisfied with regard to achieving self-actualisation needs. Hence the boredom of job repetition was not a major issue. But for technicians and supervisors, this was a problem. Applying Taylor’s scientific management principles, the department policies were in tune with it. It had a well-established performance evaluation system in place and compensation was very satisfactory. It can also be seen that the lower levels of management tend to favour Theory X rather than Theory Y though there are exceptions. This is one of the reasons of dissatisfaction among younger technicians. As the hierarchy goes up, mangers favour a Theory Y approach. The same trend is seen in the application of the Tinnenbaum and Schmidt continuum. Lower level managers (supervisors) tend to tell and sometimes sell. But as the hierarchy goes higher managers tend to consult and join with subordinates in day to day matters. With regard to Herberg two-factor theory there seems to be no problem with hygiene factors. There was no real sense of dissatisfaction among all levels. For example, there was equity of compensation, a equal treatment of all employees of a particular category. But majority of technicians and some of the supervisors tend to have motivational issues and hence no job satisfaction. Expectancy and valency of Vroom was not an issue with monetary and tangible factors. Applying Likert’s leadership styles, higher levels of management tend to be more consultative and participative. As it goes down (supervisory level) it tends towards an authoritarian approach. This state of affairs also holds well with regard to Kurt Lewin’s model which is similar to Kikert. The one major addition is the Laissez-faire approach. It can be said that engineers adopt this approach primarily because they do not have any employees under their direct command. They are mainly present to solve problems that can be handled by the supervisors and technicians. If any such event happens, the engineers try to solve the problem, sometimes taking assistance from other departments or even from outside. Hence they can afford a laissez-faire approach. It can be said that the manger follows more of a situational leadership approach as propounded by Blanchard and Hersey. The manager feels that this approach is more suited in a multi-cultural environment. If one applies Spector’s views on motivation and job satisfaction, the following factors are not issues at all levels. They include monetary compensation and equity of pay, tangible benefits, informal environment, with regard to communication; it is mostly one way with regard to technicians. This is despite the fact that the superintendent and the manager encourage communication from all levels in the department. Company policies are okay except in area like advancement. There is no real issue with nature of the job except that most of the lower level employees find it boring and repetitive. It is the lack of intangible benefits that is the real issue in the lower echelons of the department. With regard to the clerical staff, they are happy or resigned to the fate that their higher levels of needs will never be satisfied. They appear to have achieved safety needs, and tangible benefits and are quite content with. They are happy to report to the superintendent and have no real issues with other employees. For them their needs are being met and hence satisfied with their employment with the company. Conclusion: It can be seen that three is no real motivational issues with regard to the manager and the superintendents. Engineers are also quite satisfied. Again lower and midrange hierarchical needs are also being met. It is with regard to managerial approach (by supervisors) that is causing the major problem among technicians. It should be noted that they are the highest in terms of number of employees. They feel that supervision is too high (Theory X). It also is leaning heavily towards an autocratic or authoritarian style. The issues are very apparent, but it may need patience and time to find a solution. This is primarily because the mindset of the supervisor has become set and now has formed a part of the organizational culture. There should also be a solution regarding promotion and advancement in the organization. Unless this is solved, absenteeism and turnover will remain high within the department. But once these issues are addressed and solved in a few years time, the PMD will be an efficient and productive and the employees a motivated and committed lot. References Bogardus, AM 2007, PHR/SPHR: Professional in human resources certification study guide, 2nd edn, Wiley. Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. 2004. Organisational Behaviour. An introductory text, 5th ed. Prentice Hall. Gunkel, M 2006. Country-compatible incentive design, Springer. Herzberg, F, Mausner, B & Snyderman, BB 1993. The motivation to work, Transaction Publications. Pickens, J.W., 1989. The art of closing any deal, SP Books. Maslow, A. n.d. , A theory of human motivation, Mark Zimmerman, Viewed March o7, 2010, Maslow, A 1943, A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review, vol 50, pp 370 – 396. Mathis, RL & Jackson, JH 2007, Human resources management, 12th edn, Cengage Learning. Mayo, E 1925, The basis of industrial psychology, Bulletin of Taylor Society, vol 9, pp 249 – 253. Mc Gregor, D 1960. The human side of enterprise, McGraw-Hill. Murray, RA 1999, Job satisfaction of professional and paraprofessional at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, viewed 26 January 2010, Petri, HL 2010, Motivation (Behaviour): Self-perception Theory, motivation, In Encyclopædia Britannica, Viewed March 07, 2010, Read More