Motivation and Its Impact on Employees Commitment and Work Performance - Research Paper Example

Motivation and its Impact on Employees’ Commitment and Work Performance Introduction The commitment, ability and skill of a work force are vital for meeting production and service demands of organizations. It is widely acknowledged that people are the most valuable assets in corporations; however over two-thirds of organizations worldwide are struggling to meet organizational performance requirements because of the lack of commitment and engagement of employees in relation to their jobs. According to Gallup Organization research, “only 29 percent of employees are motivated and energized” (Daft, 2007, p.248). Empowering employees promotes motivation which in turn increases their engagement and commitment to their jobs; these factors raise their performance levels, and ultimately increase the company’s competitive advantage. Employee motivation is inducement or incentive which may be self-generated or produced by external forces, that promotes satisfaction and employees’ commitment towards improving their performance. Employee commitment is defined as the attachment, loyalty, and the “strength of the individual’s identification with, and involvement in a particular organization” (Armstrong, 2006, p.271), and includes the employee’s extent of engagement in his job. Productivity is “the efficient as well as the effective use of resources to achieve outcomes” (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2005, p.309); and it is related to the quality of human resources and their performance. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to examine the significance of empowering employees to increase their motivation levels; and explain how motivation can affect employees’ commitment and performance at work. The Empowerment of Employees to Motivate Them Promoting employees’ motivation at work is a primary Human Resource functon. Empowerment is the process of increasing employees’ responsibilities while holding them accountable for outcomes. The purpose of empowerment is to get employees to take responsibility for producing results rather than merely “following rules and regulations without producing tangible results” (Berman et al, 2005, p.316). It includes various reforms such as re-engineering and re-designing existing delivery processes to make them less error prone, more efficient, effective, and timely. Re-organization of the company’s operations to eliminate wastage of resources and personnel; and replacement of earlier methods of working with information technology are also improvements that empower the workforce. Replacement of old tasks with new approaches would require staff training for tackling changed responsibilities. Any anxiety on the part of workers should be addressed by human resources personnel to help employees increase their skill sets, and when particular jobs become obsolete the employees should be helped to find comparable jobs within the organization. Yusoff and Abdullah (2008) state that empowerment is a vital aspect of organizational change to meet the demands of the increasingly competitive global business environment. The HRM policy of empowerment is based on Frederick Herzberg’s motivation-maintenance model that separated motivational factors such as the “work itself, achievement, possibility for growth, responsibility, advancement and recognition” from basic factors such as “status, job security, interpersonal relations, salary and working conditions” (Petrick & Furr, 1995, 10). According to Herzberg, the former positively motivated behaviour, while the latter could be demotivators if absent, but could never act as motivators. Herzberg applied his model to work situations, and promoted job enrichment by increasing the areas of responsibility of workers to increase motivation, rather than resort to pay increases. This is similar to empowerment through supporting employee involvement and work redesign programmes. Rewards can form one component of empowerment, rather than the only basis for motivation. Financially rewarding employees based on company’s performance are through profit sharing and employee stock ownership plans ( ESOPs). At the company Reflexite, an ESOP provides three-quarters of the equity of the company in the hands of employees including managers, professional staff members, and factory floor workers. Similarly, the manufacturers of Gore-Tex, W.L. Gore and Associates compensate employees through three methods: salary, profit sharing, and an associate stock ownership program. “Unlike traditional carrot and stick approaches these rewards focus on the performance of the group rather than individuals” (Daft, 2007, p.245). Everyone works in the same direction, towards best possible performance outcomes. “Goal-setting theory is one of the best examples of human motivation and task performance” (Erez, Kleinbeck & Thierry, 2001, p.50). This theory is based on the concept that performance goals are the most powerful determinants of task behaviour. Setting goals facilitates increased performance outcomes. Research evidence indicates that striving for difficult and specific performance goals leads to higher performance than striving for easy or nonspecific goals such as “doing one’s best”. High goal commitment, feedback during task performance, and moderate complexity of task results in an increase in performance of up to 16 percent. Further, both conscious and subconscious goals have been found to impact job performance. For example, a 25-year study of American Telephone and Telegraph (AT & T) managers revealed that a one-item interview question in the first year, which asked the hired employees how many levels they wanted to progress in the company “was strongly related to subsequent promotion over the next 25 years” (Erez et al, 2001, p.23). Raising Employees’ Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic Motivation: This is implemented by providing opportunities for developing skills and abilities, ensuring that the work is challenging and interesting and promoting opportunities for progress. It is based on the fact that people can motivate themselves by seeking, finding, and carrying out work that satisfies their needs, or at least leads them to expect that their goals will be achieved. This is composed of self-generated factors that influence people to behave in a particular way or to work towards a particular goal. According to Armstrong (2006, p.253) these factors include “responsibility, which is feeling that the work is important and having control over one’s own resources; autonomy or the freedom to act; scope to use and develop skills and abilities; and interesting and challenging work and opportunities for advancement”. Extrinsic Motivation: People can be motivated by the management through methods such as rewards that incude increased pay, promotion, commendation, etc. “and punishments such as disciplinary action, withholding pay, or crticism” (Armstrong 2006: 254). Extrinsic motivation encompasses all the actions taken by the management to motivate people. Extrinsic motivators can have an immediate, short-term and powerful effect. On the other hand, the intrinsic motivators which are concerned with the quality of working life are inherent in employees and have a deeper and longer term effect. Extrinsic motivation is exemplified by both individual and system-wide rewards. For example, a bonus cheque or a promotion for the best individual job performance; or rewards such as insurance benefits or vacation time for those employees who continue working in the same organization over a specified period of time. Extrinsic rewards can produce intrinsic rewards such as a sense of self-fulfillment derived from one’s work, or the inner pride of contributing to a winning organization. Human resources management who bring out the best in people, and help them in achieving intrinsic motivation are able to motivate their workforce effectively for achieving optimal outcomes (Daft, 2007). According to Banfield and Kay (2008), the concept of motivation is based on Douglas McGregor’s model of managerial leadership assumptions known as Theory X and Theory Y. According to Theory X, employees dislike work, will avoid responsibility whenever possible, and need to be persuaded to perform. On the other hand, Theory Y believes that employees “do not dislike work, can become committed to meet organizational objectives, without coercive pressures, and will learn not only to accept but also to seek responsibility” (Petrick & Furr, 1995, p.11). In alignment with Theory X, HR professionals need to focus on incentives, penalties, close supervision and inspection to ensure productivity. In accordance with Theory Y, HRM should implement system improvements that require participation, delegation of responsibility and provision of appropriate resources to increase employee competency and productivity. It is evident that focusing on Theory Y would be beneficial to the company. Human resource management believes employees to be valued assets, with the potential to ensure competitive advantage based on their commitment, adaptability and high quality skills. Meyer, Becker and Vandenberghe (2004) argue that though commitment and motivation are different, they are related concepts. More precisely, commitment is one component of motivation; therefore both theories need to be examined to understand workplace behaviour. Improving Employee Commitment and Engagement by Motivation The external environment of companies has undergone extensive changes in the last decade. Increased international competition and globalization of businesses have created new requirements for higher financial results, greater profitability and more shareholder value. Though profitability outcomes have been positive, employees’ well-being and workability have been adversely affected by the restructuring and downsizing of companies and the increased constraints on the size of the workforce. Employees’ levels of motivation in the workplace is directly related to their commitment to their jobs which emerges from their sense of well-being and quality of life. Thus, well-being is a significant factor which impacts employees’ performance levels and consequently the company’s performance in the global market (Vanhala & Tuomi, 2006). Evidence from research indicates that the human resource policy of “commitment” when studied against a control system, was useful in testing specific combinations of policies and practices in predicting differences in performance and turnover across a business organization. The units with commitment systems had higher productivity, lower wastage levels, and lower employee turnover than those with control systems. In addition, the relationship between turnover and manufacturing productivity was moderated by the human resource system of commitment. This indicates the importance of fostering commitment among employees in an organization, by fulfilling first their basic needs, and further more complex needs, in the hierarchy (Arthur, 1994). This strategy of inducing commitment is based on the theory of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs fulfillment. Maslow stated that five innate, genetically determined needs existed in an ascending hierarchy: physiological, safety, belonging, esteem and self-actualization. Employee behaviour and motivation to perform work activities of a high standard, is based on whether the five fundamental needs of the individual have been fulfilled. This means that higher order needs such as esteem and self-actualization will influence motivation only if the lower order needs such as physiological, safety and belonging were satisfied to a large extent. For HRM, this would mean that additional empowerment or pressure for commitment would not motivate a hungry employee, since hunger is a basic need that the employee will be motivated to fulfill first (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005). Goals are established and a behaviour pathway is selected to satisfy the hierarchy of needs and wants. The influence of expectations should also be taken into account (Armstrong, 2006). For example, after an employees’ Union wins good pay and working conditions for its members thus meeting their basic needs, the next step may be towards getting their social and esteem needs met in the workplace. At the steel company Nucor, leaders have applied Herzberg’s two-factor theory successfully. The management has created one of the most motivated and dynamic workforces in the United States by providing fundamental factors for fulfilling basic needs, and incorporating motivators to meet employees’ higher level needs. “At Nucor rewarding people richly, treating them with respect, and giving them real power sparks amazing motivation and performance” (Daft, 2007, p.233). The management creates an environment that facilitates employees’ autonomous decision making on what they can and should do, which results in beneficial outcomes for themselves as well as the organization. The management has found that employees’ finding answers on their own drive the progress of the business faster than solutions that they may provide. Further, employee commitment and job engagement towards better organizational performance can be increased through changes in organizational culture. Corporate culture constitutes “the basic assumptions and beliefs of members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and define an organization’s view of itself and its environment” (Swanson, 2009, p.109). Therefore, another important area of focus is fueling changes in organizational culture to ensure highly self-motivated employees with the ability to work autonomously and responsibly. Higher morale, improved efficiency, and increased productivity of greater quality resulted from changes in company culture emphasizing employee welfare (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Employees’ Engagement in the Workplace Impacts Productivity Significantly, the three main criteria for a company’s competitive advantage are quality, innovation and cost. Organizational strategies centred on quality and innovation promote workforce commitment. According to Kimball & Nink (2006), employee engagement in the workplace and to their job is one variable that has the potential to predict an organization’s ability to achieve high results related to greater productivity, raised profit levels, efficiency of customer service, improved staff retention and workplace safety. Job satisfaction is the key element for maintaining an engaged work force. More than the factor of higher pay levels, employees’ relationship with their immediate senior impacts job satisfaction. To ensure that people become part of the organization, relationships need to be focused on. Employees’ emotional disconnection from their colleagues and supervisor results in lack of commitment to their work. To sustain employee engagement, the management should help employees “refocus on the demands of their roles and on the skills, knowledge and talents they bring to their jobs” (Kimball & Nink, 2006, p.68). Management’s efforts to discuss employee strengths and the ways in which these can make a difference, help managers to forge bonds with the work force, which leads to employee commitment to the organization and to their jobs. This ensures that they stay longer with the organization, and are more committed to quality and growth than their less engaged or actively disengaged counterparts. Human resource management’s active efforts in having meaningful conversations with their employees, help to strengthen commitment and interrupt the disengagement process. This includes defining and consistently communicating goals and objectives to their team members, while regularly inviting ideas and feedback from them. Further, during team members’ times of difficulty, an ideal manager uses honest and direct communication channels, “even when communicating a difficult message” (Kimball & Nink, 2006, p.69). Fitch (2008) reiterates the importance of effective communication, and adds that supervisors should also listen and respond to the employees’ feedback. A study conducted by Pathak, Budhwar, Singh and Hannas (2005) found a positive correlation between the implementation of HR best practices and employees’ positive psychological contract, higher commitment and greater motivation. Optimal outcomes in company’s performance could be achieved through using evidence based practice. Conclusion This paper has highlighted management’s empowerment of employees to motivate them; raising employees’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, how motivation increases employee commitment and engagement with their work, and the impact of employee engagement in the workplace on productivity. These factors in turn increase the performance outcomes of organizations. Human resource strategies based on relevant theories of the above concepts have been investigated. Today there is a shift towards organizational practices based on high performance work activities which are wider in scope, and include not only motivation of employees for improving productivity, but also an in-depth implementation of managerial practices in all aspects of the organization for total quality outcomes. Human resource personnel who use high performance work practices by adopting best practices developed from research evidence gain a competitive advantage over the organization’s competitors. This is because they take into account the competencies and capabilities of employees based on a multidimensional view on performance. By effecting change in organizational culture and supporting worker creativity, both human resource and organizational development practitioners should together aim to achieve higher levels of proficiency in business activities and profits. Further, it is important to align HRM strategies for improving employee motivation with the organization’s goals. Lashley (2001) reiterates that focus on high performance work practices extends beyond the sphere of employee motivation to areas such as recruitment and selection, training, rewards, and other personnel management practices which are important for improving organizational performance. Bibliography Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice. New York: Kogan Page Publications. Arthur, J.B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 670-687. Banfield, P. & Kay, R. (2008). Introduction to human resource management. London: Oxford University Press. Berman, E.M., Bowman, J.S., West, J.P. & Van Wart, M. (2005). Human resource management in public service: paradoxes, processes and problems. The United States: Sage Publications. Cameron, K.S. & Quinn, R.E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. The United States: John Wiley & Sons. Daft, R.L. (2007). The leadership experience. Edition 4. The United States of America: Cengage Learning. Dore, R.P. (2000). Stock market capitalism: Welfare capitalism: Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. London: Oxford University Press. Erez, M., Kleinbeck, U. & Thierry, H. (2001). Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy. London: Routledge. Fitch, B. (2008). Motivation: Rethinking the supervisor’s role. Law & Order, 56(3): pp. 100-104. Kimball, L.S. & Nink, C.E. (2006). How to improve employee motivation, commitment, productivity, well-being and safety. Corrections Today, 68(3): pp.66-69. Lashley, C. (2001). Empowerment: HR strategies for service excellence. Great Britain: Butterworth-Heinemann. Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Human resource management at work: people management and development. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Publications. Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E. & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): pp.991-1007. Pathak, R.D., Budhwar, P.S., Singh, V. & Hannas, P. (2005). Best HRM practices and employees’ outcomes: A study of shipping companies in Cyprus. South Asian Journal of Management, 12(4): pp.7-18. Petrick, J.A. & Furr, D.S. (1995). Total quality in managing human resources. Florida: CRC Press. Swanson, R.A. (2009). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing organi- zations and documenting workplace expertise. California: Bennett-Koehler. Vanhala, S. & Tuomi, K. (2006). HRM, company performance and employee well-being. Management Revue, 17(3): pp.241-255. Yusoff, Y.M. & Abdullah, H.S. (2008). HR Roles and empowering the line in human resource activities: A review and a proposed model. International Journal of Business and Society, 9(2): pp.9-19. Read More