Work Motivation in Workplace - Literature review Example

Business and Management Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Literature Review 4 Conclusion 11 References 12 Introduction Motivation is an important component of workplace behaviour among employees. It has been accepted by both researchers and teachers as a key factor which influences the success of employees. It is characterized by volition and willingness. Intrinsic motivation deals with pleasure, interest or personal enjoyment whereas extrinsic motivation is featured by reinforcement contingencies. Motivation includes closely related perceptions, beliefs, interests, actions and values. In today’s turbulent and uncertain business environment due to global economic crisis has made it difficult for the employers to find ways of gaining full potential form the employees. The factors that motivate people to invest into their workplace are beyond what is normally required and it is of great interest to researchers and employers. The employees need to understand the motivational factors of the employees to work at their peak level for them to make significant contribution for business and society. Employees must be willing to supply discretionary work effort, make work effort which is voluntary so that they can work at their peak level. Discretionary work effort is both practically and theoretically important since it has been found to affect job performance of an individual. There has been decades of work and researches in this field which has resulted in increase of empirical studies and work motivational theories of work related behaviours. In spite of years of years of investigation around multiple disciplines there have been limited efforts to integrate the empirical findings, concepts and theories. Hence debate still exists concerning why some employees give minimal work effort while others gives near effort which is above and beyond what s normally required or expected of them. Many traditional economic theories of work motivation had focussed on income-leisure trade-off labour supply model, many efficiency wage theory and work discipline models. The main emphasis of these models was the role of supervision as motivators and monetary rewards of work effort. Over the years there has been emergence of radical models of worker motivation. These models have undertaken multidisciplinary approach, integrating some psychological, personality and social phenomenon which are derived from behavioural sciences as motivating factors. These models were developed within utility theory and rational choice framework. But they were different form other conventional economic theories. This report will take a look at the literature review of workplace motivational theories. Literature Review Discretionary work indicates the difference in work effort among few employees than other employees which is due to employee motivation. Many practitioners and researchers had spent efforts understand why some employees engage in more or less discretionary work effort and what its implication on effectiveness and efficiency on the organisation. The idea of discretionary work can be traced back to the works of economists Marshall (1890), Robertson (1921) and Jevons (1871). Similar studies have been done by OB practitioners Katz (1964), Barnard (1938) and Kahn and Katz (1978). According to Robertson, the definition of efficiency of labour includes the skill and natural quality of worker along with the intensity with which the employee worked. Jevon (1970) stressed on the qualitative aspects of work effort. His logic was based on the benefits and intrinsic costs of work activities (Bishop, Scoot and Burroughs, 2000, pp. 1113-1120). Austrian School of thought (Hicks, 1932; Wicksteed, 1910; Green, 1894; Robbins, 1930) was the originator of the standard neoclassical theory if labour supply. This approach stressed on work effort as a simple means to improve the work efficiency (Barrow, 1976, pp. 433-440). According to conventional approach, work time was under the control of an individual and they were free to choose their work hours at the wage rate offered by companies but the intensity of the work effort to be exerted during working hours was enforced under the employment contract of the employee. Thus the level of work intensity shown by the employee was treated as problematic (Budman, 1994, pp. 432-440). But this view of work effort was challenged by many researchers. X-efficiency theory of Leibenstein (1966) stressed that there are no assurances that an employee will work at its peak level because of the incomplete nature of supervisor surveillance and employment contracts. Leibenstein argued that it is not possible for the firms to totally control the level of work effort of the employees and substantially deviate from their peak level of work effort unless they are motivated. He described work effort as a significant and complex variable which has some degree of discretion. He identified areas where an employee can exercise discretion. These include choice of activities (direction), time duration over activities undertaken (time), which work is done (intensity) and the quality of the acts (skill and ability) (Chang, 2003, pp. 70-79). According to Bowles (1984) the employment contracts only specifies the hours an employee will work but it does not indicate how much work must be done during the time. Hence it is upon the employee to vary his work level by varying work intensity. Thus neoclassical economics approach looks after work effort in terms of hours of work supplied. According to OB literature, work effort depends on three dimensions namely direction, intensity and duration. Duration is the time period over which one expends work effort. Intensity indicates the level of effort an employee exerts on his work. These two dimensions indicate the notion of working long and hard. The direction of work effort indicates activities which help in attainment of organisational goals instead of activities which don’t contribute to these goals and thus it increases the effectiveness of organisation (Chang, Huang and Lai, 2002, pp. 267-281). Barnard (1938) expressed that organisations are an associations of cooperative efforts. He discussed about the willingness of employees to contribute efforts towards organisational goals. He differentiated employee effectiveness, ability and value of employee contribution toward an organisation from willingness to cooperate. He stressed that it varies between and within individuals. Thus Barnard identified that part of work effort can be differentiated from ability and skill to determine employee productivity (Douglas and Morris, 2006, pp. 394-405). After Barnard, Kahn and Katz (1978) and Katz (1964) have a new perspective on discretion on work effort. These authors indicated that organisational effectiveness requires an organisation to induce employees not only remain with the organisation and perform tasks which exceeds the qualitative and quantitative standards of performance; but also needs to elicit spontaneous and innovative behaviour form the employees which goes beyond the normal role requirements. Katz (1964) found five forms of spontaneous and innovative behaviour (Douglas and Shepherd, 2000, pp. 231-241). These were offering creative ideas for improving the organisation, cooperating with others, self-training, maintaining favourable attitude towards organisation and acting to promote and protect the organisation externally and internally. Kahn and Katz (1978) argued that the willingness of employees to do the discretionary work is critical for organisational effectiveness. The work of Kahn and Katz lead to identification of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). According to the words of Organ (1988) it indicates the individual behaviour which is discretionary in nature but not explicitly or directly recognized by the formal reward system and promotes the successful functioning of the establishment. Then efforts were made in bringing together the OB and Economics perspectives. Within labour economics literature, discretionary work effort is defined as the time and effort that employees choose to allocate to work. But within OB literature work effort is defined in terms of three dimensions. But it is understood that part of work effort is not captured fully by neither OB nor economics literatures (Drago, 1991, pp. 1433-1441). Collectively the OB and economic models indicates three broad classes of factors which influence the level of discretionary work effort. These factors include monetary incentives and non-monetary work environment. Any researchers have given many names to the monetary incentives and non-monetary work environments. According to authors (Drago, 1991; Wickens, 1974; Mosca et al., 2007; Miller & Terborg, 1978) the monetary incentives are known by financial incentives, financial compensation, income, pay, rewards, earnings, bonuses, profit sharing etc. Similarly the non-monetary work environment has also been given many names like work environment, working conditions, organisational culture, organisational environment, organisational climate, motivators and hygiene factors, non-financial incentives, non-monetary compensation etc. (Dunham, 1996, pp. 404-409). These forms part of their jobs which motivates their discretionary work effort. Such positive non-monetary work environment characteristics are known as perks while the negative non-monetary work environment are called irks (Janssen, 2001, pp. 1039-1042). In both OB and labour economics literature the theoretical frameworks of work motivation suggests how factors in the work environment affect the level of discretionary work effort of an employee. There are two theoretical approaches for the organising theoretical framework. These are expectancy theory and utility theory of work motivation. These two theories form an organising framework for explaining and describing employee work behaviour (Fairris, 2004, pp. 587-596). Expectancy and Utility theory are both cognitive rational choice models. According to Konig and Steel (2006) the employee work effort is seen as the consequence of rational decision-making on the basis of subjective assessment of expected outcomes which is associated with a chosen behaviour and perceived attractiveness of the outcomes which are expected to result from it. In these models, an employee assesses the cost and benefits associated with various labels of discretionary work effort. Here the decision of the employee is governed by two important judgements (Freeman, 1998, pp. 135-141). These are an assessment of the value of outcome to the employee and an assessment of the chance that greater effort will lead to better outcomes (Phelps & Morrison, 1999; Levy & Haworth, 2001). According to Robbins (1930) Utility theory is a dominant theoretical framework and it underpins most of the theories of work effort of labour economics. This model specifies the trade-off of rewards which gives satisfaction from greater work effort against the costs which result in dissatisfaction from extra work efforts. These satisfaction and dissatisfaction due to extra work effort is subjective in nature and will vary for different employees. In case expected rewards are more than anticipated costs, the utility maximising employee is induced and he will increase its work effort (Frey, 1993, pp. 663-670). The expectancy theory is used widely as motivational framework for investigating workplace behaviours. According to (Kanfer, 1987) the model indicates that the employee’s judgement about the costs and benefits associated with the job are important part of employee’s decision to expend extra effort. According to this model, there are three factors which govern the employees’ motivation at workplace. The first factor is the extent to which an employee believes that he will be able to perform better by expending greater work effort. The second is the extent of belief within the employees that goof performance will be rewarded. Third factor is the attractiveness of outcome or reward (Frey, 1997, p. 219). There are many points of commonality between expectancy theories and subjective utility. First the concept of utility and valence are same. Second, both the theories indicate that the employee’s perceptions of link between rewards and behaviour and the value attached to the rewards decide whether or not he is motivated to the work. Third, both the valence and utility may be positive or negative (Igalens and Roussel, 1999, pp. 1003-1010). This common feature of utility-expectancy framework suits the perks and irks in the workplace. According to Phelps and Morrison (1999) it is important to include both costs and expected benefits in the workplace behaviour decision making process (Fudge and Schlacter, 1999, pp. 295-304). In OB literature, Herzberg (1968) identified pointed out two factors known as hygiene and motivators factors. This two factor theory of work motivation was an important starting point for identifying the reasons of classes of irks and perks. According to Herzberg (1968) there was one set of factors which acted as drivers of high work motivation and positive work attitudes and could be distinguished from other set of work environment factors which act as drivers of low work motivation and negative job attitudes. The set of factors, known as intrinsic motivators, represented the intrinsic features of the job like advancement, recognition for achievement, challenging work which provide growth and work itself. The second set of factors are known as hygiene factors which included company policy, administration, poor working conditions, relationships with co-workers and supervisors. Thus it is important to examine both positive and negative features of the work environment which affects the work behaviour and attitude (Giles and Mossholder, 1990, pp. 371-377). Herzberg distinguished the work environment into two parts namely the organisation and the job. Thus the organisation and the job provided the starting point for identifying irks and perks (Herzberg, 2003, pp. 36-44). He provided a list of core job features which may be perceived as perks which provide satisfaction and hence motivation. Herzberg also categorised monetary rewards as a hygiene factor. In economics literature, non-monetary and monetary rewards were distinguished as potential determinants of discretionary work effort (Hamermesh, 2001, pp. 1-11). Job characteristics are an important and central component of an employee’s work. These indicate the attributes which are inherent in the job either be due to design of the job or nature of the work with motivation related effects on employees. Herzberg (2003) was the first researcher to draw attention to the role of job content as motivating factor. According to him, job characteristics can help the employee to experience psychological growth. According to (McClelland, 1961) such an importance of job content in workplace is supported by the needs theories of work motivation. As per the needs theories, interesting, meaningful and challenging work allows workers to attain higher order needs like self-actualisation and self-esteem (Harpaz and Snir, 2003, pp. 291-301). Oldham and Hackman (1980) came out with work design theory which advocates that jobs which are interesting, meaningful and challenging motivates the employee for greater effort and increase employee satisfaction. Oldham and Hackman (1980) identified task significance, variety, autonomy, identity and feedback as the main job characteristics which motivate the employees. Cordery, Wall and Parker (2001) extended the positive list of job characteristics as to include opportunities of problem solving and skill acquisition which are linked with challenge. It has been long discussed that autonomy can help in active coping mechanism for employees which have high job demands and employees with high desire for personal development and challenge are more active for challenging job design (Issac, Zerbe and Pitt, 2001, pp. 212-219). Hence by designing complex jobs with above characteristics, managers can increase satisfaction, motivation and performance of an employee. In addition to these there are other studies which focus on this aspect of work. McLean-Parks, Cummings and Van Dyne (1995) told that work environment factors which meet the employee needs for control and achievement gives a sense of responsibility which promote commitment and satisfaction for good performance and excellence. Jellinek and Bird (1998) explained the willingness of entrepreneurs to work hard for long hours regardless of monetary gains. According to him the most important factor in entrepreneurship is its ability to satisfy a thirst to be one’s own boss which is achieved through high levels of autonomy. Baumol (1990) explained the historically entrepreneurs are motivated by the reward structure which exist in the economy at the time (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta and Kramer, 2004, pp. 5-10). These reward structure included non-monetary rewards like achievement, autonomy, pride and recognition. Thus Hornsby et al. (2002) believes that it is possible to promote entrepreneurial behaviour within employees by giving them job autonomy. Conclusion The above report examined the various fields of literature which addressed work motivation in workplace. The purpose of this report was to take into consideration multi-disciplinary review of literature and identify the main reasons for research in this field. Economists have viewed discretionary work in terms of intensity and time facets. They have also stressed on monetary rewards and have examined few non-monetary rewards in a work environment as job characteristics. But this view neglects the direction part of discretionary work effort and several other non-monetary work environments which affects the intensity and time facets of workplace. But OB researchers viewed discretionary work effort in terms of direction facet and took into consideration range of non-monetary work characteristics. But they have overlooked the intensity and time aspect for work effort and paid less attention to monetary rewards as a motivating factor for work effort. Thus both the above point of view provides incomplete insights into the discretionary work effort. There were other approaches like Herzberg motivation theory, Expectancy theory, Utility theory which takes a look at other aspects of motivation at workplace. Thus it can conclude that perks are secondary in nature and employees looks forward to non-monetary rewards as motivating factor. References Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. 2004. “Leader behaviours and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support”. The Leadership Quarterly. Vol. 15(2), pp. 5-10 Barrow, J.C. 1976. “Worker performance and task complexity as causal determinants of leader behaviour style and flexibility”. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 61(4), pp. 433-440 Bishop, J.W., Scoot, K.D. and Burroughs, S.M. 2000. “Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment”. Journal of Management. Vol. 26(6), pp. 1113-1120 Budman, M. 1994. “The persistence of perks”. Across the Board. Vol. 31(2), pp. 432-440 Chang, E. 2003. “Composite effects of extrinsic motivation on work efforts: case of Korean employees”. Journal of World Business. Vol. 38(2), pp. 70-79 Chang, J.J., Huang, C.C. and Lai, C.C. 2002. “Is the efficiency wage efficient when workers decide on the working time?” Journal of Economics. Vol. 77(3), pp. 267-281 Douglas, E.J. and Morris, R.J. 2006. “Workaholic or just hard worker?” Career Development International. Vol. 11(5), pp. 394-405 Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. 2000. “Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response”. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15(2), pp. 231-241 Drago, R. 1991. “Incentives, pay and performance: a study of Australian employees”. Applied Economics. Vol. 23(1), pp. 1433-1441 Dunham, R.B. 1996. “The measurement and dimensionality of job characteristics”. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 61(4), pp. 404-409 Fairris, D. 2004. “Towards a theory of work intensity”. Eastern Economic Journal. Vol. 30(4),pp. 587-596 Freeman, R.B. 1998. “Job Satisfaction as an economic variable”. American Economic Review. Vol. 68(2), pp. 135-141 Frey, B.S. 1993. “Does monitoring increase work effort? The rivalry with trust and loyalty”. Economic Inquiry. Vol. 31(4), pp. 663-670 Frey, B.S. 1997. Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fudge, R.S. and Schlacter, J.L. 1999. Motivating employees to act ethically: An expectancy theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 18(3), pp. 295-304 Giles, W.F. and Mossholder, KW. 1990. “Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal”. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 75(4), pp. 371-377 Hamermesh, D.S. 2001. “The changing distribution of job satisfaction”. Journal of Human Resources. Vol. 36(2), pp. 1-11 Harpaz, I. and Snir, R. 2003. “Workaholism: Its definition and nature”. Human Relations. Vol. 56(3), pp. 291-301 Herzberg, F. 2003. “One more time how do you motivate employees?” Harvard Business Review. Vol. 46(1), pp. 36-44 Igalens, J. and Roussel, P. 1999. A study of the relationship between compensation package, work motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. Vol. 20(7), pp. 1003-1010 Issac, R.G., Zerbe, W.J., and Pitt, D.C. 2001. “Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy theory”. Journal of Managerial Issues. Vol. 13(2), pp. 212-219. Janssen, O. 2001. “Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction”. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 44(5), pp. 1039-1042 Read More