Job Design and Taylors Principles of Motivation - Essay Example

? Job Design Job Design Work motivation refers to the sets of active forces, which emanate from both within and beyond a person’s being, to commence work-related behaviour and determine its direction, form, duration and intensity. Appreciating what motivates employees is a vital part of the study of industry and organisational psychology. Motivation is essentially the psychological process, which provides behaviour direction and purpose. Maslow defined motivation as the internal drive to meet an unsatisfied need or desire. Another succinct definition of motivation is the ambitions, desires and needs, which cause people to desire to achieve something. However, it is vital to appreciate that needs, as well as how they are fulfilled, differ significantly between people. Different theorists such as classicalist and behavioralist theorists differ on their stances regarding motivation (Ambrose & Kulik 1999, p. 238). Classical theories and classicalists such as Fredrick Taylor made substantive contributions to the foundations of motivation and management. Although Taylor’s theory of motivation was applicable in the 20th century, his theory is continually becoming irrelevant in the 21st century workplace. One of the major criticisms of classical theory of motivation includes the fact that the source of most of their experiences derived from manufacturing situations. Taylor established the scientific movement of management, allowing for the study of work processes scientifically. Taylor primarily considered how employees performed their duties and how this ultimately affected their productivity. Taylor’s philosophy centred on the notion that making people work extremely hard was not as effective as enhancing the way such work is done. The theorist believed that simplifying and optimizing jobs increases employee productivity, hence employees and managers need to work cooperatively (Cameron & Quinn 2006, p. 49). Taylor’s principle did not provide for standardization. He considered continued employment as the primary source of employee motivation. This means that Taylor’s principles offered employees no incentives to work efficiently or quickly. The theorist believed that employees were motivated by money, hence the need for the idea of a fair pay for a day’s work. Therefore, according to Taylor, workers who fail to achieve high productivity do not deserve to receive as much pay as other workers who achieve high productivity. Organisation is the core of business in 21st century organisations. Modern organisations are extremely efficient and organized, making the organisations function effectively and increase their productivity. This involves breaking down tasks linked with different components in an organisation, resulting in the concept of job design. Job design developed with speedy technological advancements of the 20th century, particularly when assembly line operations and mass production became the mainstay in organisations. In the 21st century, jobs are continually becoming specialized and sophisticated, hence the need for highly educated and motivated employees within the workforce (Rush 1971, p. 81). The primary purpose of job design is to enhance both employee productivity and motivation. Increased productivity manifests itself through a number of forms, for instance, focus can centre on the improvement of quantity and quality of products and services, the reduction of training costs, turnover and overall operation costs. On the other hand, enhancing employee motivation is attainable through increased job satisfaction. In light of this, Herzberg’s Two-Hygiene Theory describes two groups of factors, dissatisfying and satisfying, which impact employees’ self-esteems, as well as opportunities for self-actualisation within the work environment. This involves hygiene factors and motivators. Herzberg poises that hygiene factors do not necessarily motivate employees when they are present, but their absence results in dissatisfaction (Latham & Pinder 2005, p. 503). Hygiene factors include reimbursement, proper supervision, work rules, seniority benefits, interpersonal relations and status. Conversely, when managers treat their employees poorly, the latter are likely to be dissatisfied and unmotivated. Herzberg poises that, in order for employees to be motivated, managers must make use of some of his motivators. Herzberg’s primary recommendation is that motivators should be used in combination with job enrichment. Herzberg’s primary sources of employee motivation include responsibility, growth, advancement, work itself and recognition. Herzberg’s theory encourages the use of these motivators as rewards and incentives to push employees to motivate themselves in order to attain the motivators. After earning these elements, employees feel genuine satisfaction. Herzberg argues that all jobs need to be learning experiences and need to consist of feedback for the employees, and the employees should also be responsible for self-checking their work instead of relying on inspectors (Herzberg 1966, p. 154). In essence, Herzberg’s theory made substantive distinctions between motivators and hygiene factors because employees do not need to move in a gamut from being dissatisfied to attaining satisfaction or vice versa. However, Herzberg’s point is that the opposition of satisfaction is not primarily dissatisfaction, but lack of satisfaction, while the opposite of dissatisfaction is not necessarily dissatisfaction by lack of dissatisfaction. Within the business sense, Herzberg’s point is that hygiene or dissatisfying factors help to support and sustain the structure of an employee’s job. On the other hand, satisfying factors or motivators help employees attain self-actualisation, consequently increasing their motivation to keep doing the job and enhancing their overall productivity. Conversely, Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs also speaks to employee motivation within the workplace. Maslow argued that needs, which are unfulfilled are applicable as motivators. Employees need to determine things, which satisfy their needs. This means that once employees fulfil a certain need, that need cannot be used to motivate them to work. For instance, for employees whose physiological, job safety and belonging needs are met, they can be motivated by providing them with opportunities, which fulfil their self-esteem and status needs (Munchinsky 2012, p. 64). In such instances, employers can motivate their employees by offering them new job titles or recognition instead of things from previous needs. Once employees meet their self-esteem and status needs, it is inconsequently for managers to try to motivate them through things such as employee newsletters and personal awards. Maslow mentions something, which Herzberg considers imperative in his principles of motivation; self-actualisation. Maslow considers the self-actualisation need as the highest possible need, which pushes people to achieve optimal satisfaction. Therefore, some ways of motivating employees by appealing to their self-actualisation include offering new challenges, work time for training and learning or tuition reimbursements. On the other hand, the need for knowledge is one of the most pertinent motivators in the workplace (Rush 1971, p. 69). People have a distinct desire to acquire as much knowledge as they can or is possible. Such people find nearly all subjects interesting. In essence, Maslow’s hierarchy needs theory provides that employees do not necessarily need supervision. This is because their desire to meet their unmet needs is sufficient motivation to push them to work and enhance productivity in order to go up their hierarchy of needs. Based on the above examination of Taylorism, Herzberg and Maslow’s principles of motivation, it is evident that Taylor alleged of the requirement to find the most resourceful ways of performing work related tasks. He also believed that there is a need to match employees to their jobs on the basis of their motivation and capability before training them to attain optimal efficiency. Evidently, Taylorism advanced the notion that there is only a single proper way to approach tasks. Consequently, this approach is contrary to modern approaches such as management by objectives (MBO) and business process reengineering (BPR). Another primary source of discord among the theories is Taylorism’s assertion that there is a need for managers to supervise their employees in order to ensure they achieve optimal productivity at the end of the work period. In the 21st century, Taylorism is less applicable than Maslow’s and Herzberg’s principles of employee motivation. This is because Taylorism focuses intently on enhancing motivation and productivity by improving working conditions and remuneration. Taylor argued that his theory helps the company and its employees. His strategies aimed at increasing workers’ speed, reducing injuries and stress. He argued that increased employee remuneration, as well as reduction of injuries and fatigue, results in the enhancement of employee motivation and overall productivity (Robertson & Smith 1985, p. 87). The inapplicability of Taylor’s principle of motivation to the 21st century emanates primarily from the fact that work-related injuries and fatigue have dramatically reduced as a consequence of the advent of technology. This means that assuring employees of their safety from injuries and fatigue is not sufficient motivation in the contemporary business environment, which is characterised by employee insurance against health-related injuries. In essence, the modern workplace environment does not call for Taylor’s principles of motivation, but rather other suitable motivation strategies to enhance employee productivity. For instance, Maslow’s theory of motivation is quite applicable in the 21st century since it provides for self-motivation based on the attainment of personal goals in order to meet unattained goals with the view to achieving the optimal need of self-actualisation. Both Maslow and Herzberg argue that the attainment of self-actualisation is the best motivation for employees to perform exceptionally and attain increased productivity. Herzberg and Maslow both provided viable alternatives for the enhancement of employee productivity through increased motivation. Self-actualisation is the epitome of self-motivation, which is encouraged in the 21st century workplace (Pinder 2008, p. 215). The 21st century workplace needs individuals who can work under minimal supervision, which Taylorism requires to guarantee high productivity levels. Therefore, although Taylorism was effective in the 20th century workplace, it is inapplicable in the modern organization. References Ambrose, M, & Kulik, C 1999, “Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s.” Journal of Management, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 231–92. Cameron, K, & Quinn, R 2006, Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Herzberg, F 1966, Work and the nature of man, World Publishing Company, Cleveland. Latham, G, & Pinder, C 2005, “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty first century.” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 56, pp. 485–516.  Munchinsky, PM 2012, Psychology applied to work, Hypergraph Press Incorporation, North Carolina. Pinder, CC 2008, Work motivation in organizational behaviour, 2nd edn, Psychology Press, New York. Robertson, I, & Smith, M 1985, Motivation and job design: Theory, research, and practice. West Publishing Company, Minneapolis. Rush, H 1971, Job design for motivation: Experiments in job enlargement and job enrichment, The Conference Board, New York. Read More