HRM Motivation Theories - Case Study Example

Human Resource Management Case Study and Analysis Contents 2 Introduction 3 The factory’s background 4 The HRM related problems in the factory 4 Theories in Human Resources Management 6 Analysis of the case study using HRM motivation theories 7 Solution 8 Alternative Solution 9 Conclusion 9 References 11 Abstract This project aims at using a case study and identifying the major HRM problems that have tampered with the productivity of the workers. The project will clearly illustrate the problems as part of the case study, then analyze it using major theories to solve the problems at hand. Introduction Human resources of any company include all the work force in the company whereas Human Resource Management is the authority that is responsible for motivating, recruiting, training and ensuring that the workers are more productive (Torres-Coronas, & Arias-Oliva, 2009). This case study and analysis will educate its users on the importance of Human Resource Management and by using; various theories in the analysis will ensure that companies are able to gain more productivity from their workforces by understanding the needs of their employees. The case study is undertaken in an Agro-processing factory in a developing country. It will reveal major problems encountered in the company, which are similar to other companies in the industry. By addressing these problems, the case study will shed light to the various relationship issues between the management, employees and the owners. Since most of the problems are based on employee issues that end up causing havoc for the factory and the owners the analysis will use theories mainly associated with motivation of the employees, which are under content theory and process theory. The factory’s background The factory is a tea processing company. The owners of the factory are the tea farmers who are represented by the board of directors voted in by the farmers. The management of high office that include the Factory Unit Manager, Production Manager and his assistant, the Accountant, and communication and system manager are employed by the tea industry, but all the other members in management are employed by the board of directors. The factory collects tea from the growers in the buying centers and they provide the means of transportation and processing the tea and later selling it locally or exporting it. There are two different types of employees the permanent employees and casuals. The HRM related problems in the factory The Production manager acts as the Human Resource manager since he is responsible for recruiting employees who are approved by the directors. He is also responsible of motivating the workers and undertakes all the issues regarding the workers. The lack of a separate Human Resource manager is the basis of the problems faced by the employees since the production manager main aim is to productivity at the expense of the employees’ health, earnings and overworking. Working in the finance department as an intern made me work on this case since the finance department is responsible for recording the number of hours for every worker. The task of recording the hours of the employees was my main work during my internship and the production manager later signed the records. I realized that every employee during this period was supposed to work for 14 hours daily and any overtime was paid but two hours were paid as a single hour. This is exploitation of the employees and the employees were worn-out due to the long working hours thus low productivity. The relationship between the workers and the production manager was hostile since he expected the employees to be more productive without giving in to the employees’ grievances of increase in wages for any extra hour the employees work and changing the 14 hours a day to a maximum of 12 hours per day. Productivity was high during the first week of the month, but depreciated from the second week continuously until the end of the month. This led to many employees to lose their jobs for opposing the production manager and most of their wages were not paid. The laying-off of employees was not reciprocated by employment of other workers, thus leading to work overload and lower production. The workers’ health depreciated and they workers and their union demanded for changes but the production manager did not make any changes. The reduction in productivity and the overworking of the employees affected the factory’s profits, huge losses were recorded in the second month, and the employees started a go-slow demonstration to air their grievances. This only worsens their problems as due to the go slow the normal working hours were increased to 18 hours and there were no overtime payments. The lack of jobs made the workers to still report to work, but some of them resigned. When the conditions and workload was unbearable, the workers started a strike to make their grievances known to even the external environment of the factory. The strike lasted for two weeks and their grievances were added as they wanted the conditions changed fewer working hours, rehiring of the previously laid-off workers and increment of overtime payments. The strike affected even the farmers who are the owners of the factory and they supported the employees in the strike. This issue led to increased hostility towards the management. The directors were called upon to ensure that the management was reshuffled from the head office industry and new management to take their place. This seemed to be the way forward, but the issue is not over until the factory employs a Human Resource manager to carry out issues regarding the employees. The main reason of using this case study is to use theories to show the essence of Human Resource Managers in any company and the different ways that the HRM can motivate the employees to improve productivity (Armstrong & Baron, 2002). The HRM will ensure that a similar problem will not happen and the employees’ needs will be addressed for improved productivity thus increased productivity. Theories in Human Resources Management In 1980’s, human resource was made the most important component of any organization and many elites took part to contribute on the best strategies to ensure that the workforce is happy thus increasing its productivity. Porter used the HR model that claims that humans are motivated by a complex set of interrelated factors and when these factors are absent, the workers will tend to have low productivity, become unloyal and bored by the job they are working in (Armstrong & Baron, 2002). He stated that these factors are mainly money, affiliation and desire to participate in meaningful work where they feel that their hard work is appreciated (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2011). Gross uses the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs claiming that humans are motivated to satisfy their needs before progressing to a higher stage. These needs are grouped into five main categories, namely safety and security, belongingness, self-actualization, psychological needs related to survival and esteem and ego. Alderfer then adopts this theory in his ERG theory that state that the five needs described in the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs should be reduced to only three categories. These three categories are ERG that is, existence, relatedness and growth. All the human needs of these theories are interrelated and concentrate mainly on individual employees, but their failure to illustrate the connection of the needs and the strategic management of the company makes them welcome critics from the companies’ management. The McGregor’s X and Y theory are the most adopted theory in many firms globally because it portrays a better relationship of strategic management and Human resource management. In his Y theory, McGregor states that working under favorable conditions will motivate the employees to perform efficiently, thus grow and develop with the organization to attain the optimum potential (Gagné, 2014). Evans criticized this theory where he claimed that the emphasis by McGregor on work would tamper with the person’s psychological needs of personal life outside their work thus lower productivity. McGregor, however, in his X theory states that people hate working, but they can be forced to work through coercion and threats (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2006). Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory, states that motivation and hygiene are the two determinants of increasing productivity. He claimed that the two could gain either satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the employees. Under motivation, he stated that achievements, recognition and responsibility are satisfactory factors for the employees whereas poor managerial styles and poor work colleagues, low salaries and company’s policy are the hygiene that causes dissatisfaction amongst many employees (Ehnert, 2009). The concept of hygiene is adopted by most Human Resource Managers since motivation factors are difficult to achieve before the hygiene factors are factored in to ensure that the employees are comfortable before motivation factors are introduced for satisfactory purposes and increased productivity. Analysis of the case study using HRM motivation theories The Tea Factory adopted McGregor’s X theory where the production manager thought that the employees were generally lazy and did not want to work. He used his power to force the employees to work under the company policy (Sims, 2007). This move of coercion did not work thus led to a go-slow by the workers. The production manager took the step of firing some of the employees as a threat to the others, but the lack to apply Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory to improve the hygiene conditions resulted in the strike and huge losses (Deckop, 2006). The major contributor of the strike was hygiene factors, namely poor management style, low salaries after many working hours and the factory’s policy of maintaining that the working hours per day is 14 hours whereas the job was very physical. These factors made it hard to satisfy McGregor’s Y theory since the working conditions were poor, thus the workers did not motivate the workers to grow and develop together with the factory to attain their optimum potential (Sharma, 2006). This is shown by the decrease in productivity of the employees that led to the factory suffering huge losses. Solution The production manager did not make use of any human needs, as he did not take it upon himself to adopt any of the theories above. The striking employees increased their grievances to resume their tasks in the Tea Factory, the support of the farmers makes their pleas stronger, and the factory will incur more difficulties in ensuring that their grievances are addressed without increasing labor costs to the point that it will be impossible to pay the employees huge salaries and make any profits. The best strategy for the Factory is to hire a Human Resource Manager who will ensure that the workers’ needs are satisfied (Stahl & Björkman, 2006). The resource manager will change the working hours to become favorable for the workers to gain high productivity from all the workers. This is because longer working hours makes the employees tired and bored thus low productivity. The Human Resource manager will also address the issue of salaries and management style where the employees will feel secure about their jobs, feel appreciated and responsible to ensure the objectives of the factory are realized. The ability to make justifiable judgments by a skilled and qualified Human Resource Manager is higher than that of the production manager undertaking two obligations. This is portrayed by the poor strategy by the production manager in trying to gain higher productivity using McGregor’s X theory. The policy of the factory to maintain the Production manager as the HRM led to the strike. Alternative Solution It is very expensive to hire an experienced HRM but the factory’s management and board of directors can choose one of the resourceful workers in regards to employee rights and management. This employee will receive training in human resources and receive a salary increment that is relatively low to hire a HRM. The employee will have a better working relationship with the workers, thus better working conditions. The essence that the trained employee knows the challenges of the employees in the factory, he will try to ensure that their grievances are acted upon thus satisfy Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory of increased productivity (Ehnert, 2009). Conclusion The case study portrays that McGregor’s X theory does not work in cases where the employees know their rights. The application of this theory led to the strike of the workers, which is complex to handle as external environment, is aware of the problems the employees undergo in the company. This negativity of the ill treatment of the employees in the factory will tarnish the goodwill of the factory and may tamper with local and international sales. The increased grievances by the employees and the support of the owners to replace the management portray the extent of poor management styles by the current management. The support from the owners who form the society the factory is located portrays the need for HRM who could have addressed the issue before it went overboard. There are different theories on motivation of employees but most of them are interrelated in the essence that they advocate for similar factors in regards to human needs that are essential in motivating workers. The essence that most of the theories have been criticized shows that there are no universal needs of the humans. This calls for an experienced HRM who will identify the theories that will work under the type of people he is managing and the conditions at hand. It is clear to note that the best theory to undertake under similar conditions and workers as in the case study is Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory that will ensure that the workers are satisfied thus improve their productivity. Undertaking this case study and analysis has taught me that humans are not machines and absence to handle human needs may lead to the failure of even the biggest companies. I would like to learn more about the best strategy among all the motivational theories that would work in all organizations. References Armstrong, M., & Armstrong, M. (2011). Armstrongs handbook of strategic human resource management. London: Kogan Page. Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2002). Strategic HRM: The key to improved business performance. London: Chartered Inst. of Personnel and Development. Boxall, P. F., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2006). The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deckop, J. R. (2006). Human resource management ethics. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub. Inc. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Gagné, M. (2014). The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Sharma, S. (2006). Management in new age: Western windows eastern doors. W.p: New Age International. Sims, R. R. (2007). Human resource management: Contemporary issues, challenges and opportunities. Greenwich, Conn: Information Age Publ. Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (2006). Handbook of research in international human resource management. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar Pub. Torres-Coronas, T., & Arias-Oliva, M. (2009). Encyclopedia of human resources information systems: Challenges in e-HRM. Hershey: Information Science Reference. Read More