Creating Employee Motivation through the Use of Manipulation Is Not True Motivation - Literature review Example

Employee motivation Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Employee motivation: A tool to manipulate for maximize effort or a tool for management to use to facilitate employee efforts? Name of Client Name of University Name of Class Employee motivation 2 Employee motivation: A tool to manipulate for maximize effort or a tool for management to use to facilitate employee efforts? Introduction The use of employee motivation in order to achieve goals within an organization has two potential resources from which that motivation is reached. The first method of creating motivation is through a manipulation of the employee in order to maximize the efforts that employee will put forward in order to achieve the goal. The second methodology can be described as a way in which management facilitates the employee in order to provide motivation, thus achieving that goal. In a discussion about the way in which these two directions of motivation can be assessed for success, it is first important to understand what factors should be considered in creating motivation. It is also necessary to look at the big picture when contemplating using manipulation as a resource for motivation. Assessing the behavior of an organization in the way that it motivates its employees can create an understanding of how goals are and are not being achieved. Motivating Factors There are several factors that are involved where employee motivation is concerned. Employee characteristics, management factors, organizational factors, and task outcomes are the primary categories under which employee motivation are most effected (Naoum, 2001, pp. 241). Employee needs and characteristics can come into conflict with company goals creating a problem with the individual that can be addressed by a management team with the goal of creating a more effective employee. The initial need in an employment relationship is work in exchange for monetary gain. However, the needs of an employee will extend beyond the simple Employee motivation 3 need for money and effective management can be employed to address those needs in such a way that they no longer distract an employee from reaching company goals. Content theories of motivation are based on the concept that people are most motivated by their inner needs. This idea is based on answering the question “what drives behavior?” (Borkowski, 2005, pp. 114). To fully explore the content theories, a management team can utilize Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in order to assess the way in which to most optimally motivate an employee. The needs that must be addressed are easily envisioned by looking at the pyramidal schematic of Maslow’s design. The basic needs, the needs for human survival such as food and shelter must be met in order for higher needs to be utilized as motivational factors. The needs, according to Maslow and Stephens (2000) are as follows: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self actualization (pp. 3). Continuing with content theory, in order to properly motivate an employee these needs must be met to the level that is appropriate to the desires of the employee within the position and to the benefit of the employer. An employee who isn’t having their physiological needs met will be distracted by the fight to attain those goals, while one who doesn’t feel safe will be distracted by those issues. However, in most instances, the needs for higher levels of satisfaction are most relevant to finding motivation for an employee (Fiore, 2004, pp. 62). The desire to achieve higher levels on the pyramid of needs pushes an employee toward higher levels of achievement, however, if a level on that pyramid is not at its peak, the drive for greater achievement might be impeded. Process theory is based on the idea that in order to create a certain outcome, a repetition of the ways in which that outcome is achieved must be created. The most useful theory within Employee motivation 4 process theory is that of expectancy theory which suggests that when choices are presented in courses of action two values will be used in order to determine the direction of the course. The first value is that of the value of achieving the outcome. The second is probability of achieving that outcome (Perry, 2007, pp. 110). The contemplation of an action will take into consideration a more complex web of action and outcome scenarios that will include individuated needs and the effect that the outcome will have on those needs. Manipulation Herzberg defined business motivations by two terms, one being ‘satisfiers’ and the other being ‘dissatisfies’. Dissatisfying factors such as salary or supervision methodologies can create dissatisfaction and decrease motivation. However, responsibility and opportunities for advancement are considered satisfiers which can lead to better job performance (Chewning, Eby & Roels, 1990, pp. 166). Consider the difference of these two aspects of satisfaction. Salary and supervision can be seen as diminishing factors that affect the dignity and personal respect of an individual. However, the use of responsibility and opportunity appeals to the need for self-actualization. Any employee who is working their way through the hierarchy of needs to achieve greater personal satisfaction will immediately respond when responsibility and opportunity will allow them to advance up the ladder of human needs. Hiam (1999) provides a solid example of how an employer may try to manipulate motivation rather than inspire it in his or her employees. He cites the example of a manager who sets up a program of rewards and recognition for job performance, but a general unrest about the system is soon felt within the employees. This method of motivation is not uncommon within organizations, but the issue of the system is not in the rewards and the recognition, but rather in Employee motivation 5 the way in which the tasks and goals were presented (pp. 255). The problem with the system, or game, was that the tasks were not clear and the rules appeared to shift according to the needs of the company. This set up a situation where the employees felt they were being taken advantage of and sold a bit of ‘snake oil’ in order for the company to be the ultimate victor. This diminished the intelligence and respect that was felt by the employees, leaving them feeling disgruntled rather than inspired. Manipulation is founded upon the aspect of belief when it is related to motivation (Hayworth, 2005, pp. 207). If an employee believes in what they are doing they will not feel a sense of manipulation. However, if there is no belief involved with the positive outcomes of the goals either for the employee or for the company, then motivational efforts can be seen as forces of manipulation. Communication is the key to creating a team effort with believers on board. When a goal is specifically to the benefit of management, motivations that relate to the goals of the employees should be employed so that resentment is not created which leads to feelings of manipulation. Finding ways to create positive outcomes through familiar previous outcomes allows for manipulation to be minimized in regard to motivational factors. Using the concepts presented in process theory, a manager can use previous achievements in order to show the advantages of meeting the new goals. Rewards can create further motivation, but without a belief in the initial task outcomes, an employee will feel manipulated and decidedly not motivated to achieve those goals. As well, without a reference to previous outcomes, the goals may not seem to have any value in regard to the achievement of personal needs. This can work as well in regard to a reversal of association. When a new task or goal is Employee motivation 6 presented it can be referred to a previous goal or task that may not have been successful, thus creating a contrast with the new concept in order to inspire hope. New ideas tend to be resented and create disharmony when presented, however showing the potential for success against a previous failure can inspire new hope within employees (Naoum, 2001, pp 242). As presented, using manipulation tactics in order to promote behavior will not work when it is easily seen as a manipulation. Manipulation can be seen as positive manipulation, as a carrot dangled in front of an employee to motivate them forward, or negative manipulation which is based on the fear of losing if performance does not meet the standards set. Both forms of manipulation are routinely used as management devices to create motivation. Many management teams will believe that positive incentives and rewards as manipulation devices are successful in motivating employees. Chapman (2003), however, strongly disagrees with this concept. He uses the example of a battery to explain. If battery is recharged, it will have to be repeatedly recharged in order to hold life. However, if you give a person their own generator, they will be sustained. In other words, manipulations have to be repeated where true motivations sustain forward movement (pp. 87). Facilitating Motivation The use of motivational theories helps an organization create a strategy for finding truly worthwhile motivations for its employees. Understanding the pyramid of needs will help to create a foundation for employees as they are given reasons to work towards higher goals. Creating successful processes that provide foreseeable outcomes that will be successful and have mutual benefits will help to promote more job satisfaction when accompanied with responsibility and opportunity. Thus far, manipulation does not see to have the lasting effect that truly Employee motivation 7 motivated aspects of employment will have on the individual. According to Chapman (2003), motivators include achievement, pride in workmanship, ownership, growth, and recognition (pp. 90). Within these concepts, the key to creating motivation is in providing aspects of need recognition and fulfillment. According to Latham (2007), “At the dawn of this new millennia, it would appear that cognitive theories of motivation will likely be integrated with personality as well as affective processes” (pp. 127). Cognitive theories of motivation are designed around the idea that “individual behavior is influenced by the way people see themselves and their environment”(Wiseman & Hunt, 2008, pp. 55). Cognitive theory, which is also process theory, suggests that expectancy theory, goal theory, and equity theory will lead a manager toward more effective motivation. Expectancy theory, which has been previously evaluated in this work, can also be reduced to valency - instrumentality - expectancy, as suggested by Vroom in 1984 . Valency is considered the value, instrumentality is concerned with belief doing something will lead to something else, and expectancy is the probability with which that outcome will be achieved (Armstrong, 2002, pp. 60). On of the problems that occurs when this theory is in play is that the expectations are not predictable on new situations, thus lowering the motivation that can be applied to a new task. Motivation can only be attached when a clear outcome is visible from an action. When monetary concepts are concerned, motivation can be lacking when a clear reward is not seen. Goal theory is simply the idea that when clear goals are set and accepted, no matter what the difficulty, motivation and performance increases. The perception that valued feedback will be given will also increase motivation. This works when both the employee and management work together in creating these goals so that the acceptance of them is from a clear point of reference Employee motivation 8 that there is value in achieving them for the employee (Armstrong, 2002, pp. 61). Having a clear goal dictated does not provide the incentive that a collaborative relationship will provide. The third aspect of cognitive motivation theory is that of equity theory which suggests that someone who is treated with a sense of equity will be far more motivated than someone who feels they are being treated with less equity (Armstrong, 2002, pp. 62). When an employee feels there is a sense of fairness about the way that he or she is treated, that respect is given and therefore received, a motivational effect can be experienced. Therefore, having a management system that is not based on the concept of superiors and subordinates, rather than levels of responsibility and team members will provide a far more motivating scenario within a business environment. Conclusion Creating employee motivation through the use of manipulation is not truly motivation. Therefore, it is not valid to consider manipulation with the intent of creating maximum effort a way of creating motivation. Motivation within the business environment is achieved when it becomes perpetuated through management efforts to fulfill needs and to create sustainable belief in the goals that are the aims of the company. An employee who is truly motivated, rather than charged up under the guise of a temporary incentive or promise, will create a better long term investment for future growth. Manipulation diminishes the employee by creating an atmosphere in which their contribution to the company is no longer based on competency, achievement and purpose, but based on needs that are gratuitous and without the future of either the company or the individual considered. As stated by Chapman (2003), creating motivation that is temporary will need to be Employee motivation 9 recharged whenever a new goal is eminent. This isn’t truly motivation, but manipulated behavioral response (73). This type of response has no true benefit other than the achievement of the immediate goal. It provides no sense of future opportunity and provides no sense of self-respect. Motivation is achieved when an employee has a driven desire to create success for himself and for his company through behaviors that will promote growth and continuing long term success. The advantage of true motivation over manipulated performance is that it is a driving force that is a continuation of forward movement. Performance is crucial to the growth of a company and an employee who is concerned with overall performance of the duties of their position who is motivated by the responsibilities they are given and the opportunities available will have a deeper loyalty and provide a long term investment for the organization. The gratuitous nature of manipulation does not create long term loyalties and will create a situation with less overall motivation. It is clear that creating true motivation through the assessment of needs and the creation of task and goal presentation that serves the organization and the employee with potential satisfactory outcomes is a far better strategy than using manipulating tactics in order to entice higher performance. A business that uses systems that do not create a respect for the employee will encourage an atmosphere that suggests that both the company and the employee should quickly ring as much out of the situation as possible without regard to future interests. This does not bode well for the long term needs of either the employee or the company. Therefore, true motivation should be the goal of the relationships that are built within an organization between its management and its workers. Employee motivation 10 References Borkowski, N. (2005). Organizational behavior in health care. Boston: Jones and Bartlett. Chapman, K. (2003). The Leader’s Code. New York: IUniverse. Chewning, R. C., Eby, J. W., & Roels, S. J. (1990). Business through the eyes of faith. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Fiore, D. J. (2004). Introduction to educational administration: Standards, theories, and practice. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education. Hayworth, D. (2005). Public speaking. New York: Kessinger. Hiam, A. (1999). Streetwise motivating and rewarding employees: New and better ways to inspire your people. Holbrook, Ma: Adams Media Corporation. Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Maslow, A. H., & Stephens, D. C. (2000). The Maslow business reader. New York [u.a.]: Wiley. Naoum, S. (2001). People and organizational management in construction. London: Telford. Perry, Bob. (2007). Organizational Management and Information Systems. Cima Pub. Wiseman, D., & Hunt, G. (2008). Best practice in motivation and management in the classroom. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas. Read More