Motivational Techniques in the Work Setting - Research Paper Example

? Motivational Techniques in the Work Setting al Affiliation Motivational Techniques in the Work Setting Introduction One of the most profoundly research topics in organizational behavior is motivation. The rationales could stem from the diverse factors that apparently influence and impact on motivation. Various theories have likewise evolved to examine driving forces and how these impact on individuals, employees, groups, and the overall organizational performance. In this regard, the current discourse aims to present relevant concerns to determine how motivating employees in a workplace increase their behavior and performance in an organizational setting; as well as what motivating techniques would be deemed most effective in achieving identified goals. Motivation Defined and Famous Theories The origin of the word ‘motivation’ was examined to have originated from the Latin word ‘movere’ or ‘motum’ which reportedly means ‘to move’ (Webster's collegiate dictionary, 1941). Motivation is defined as “a whole class of drives, needs, and similar forces that prompt a person to feel, think, and act in certain ways or to develop tendencies for specific behavior” (Martires & Fule, 2004, p. 570). From the definition, it could be deduced that there are complex forces that evidently interact and impinge on the individual or a group of persons to influence them towards a specifically defined direction or goal. These forces are hereby explored in greater detail through an examination of the motivational theories which evolved through time. What makes motivational theories challenging to be applied in the work setting is the diversity within which each person is designed according to needs and drives that rationalize their decisions to work. As such, the most competent people who are expected to design strategies that would be deemed most effective in motivating people are leaders or managers. As acknowledged, “the people who are most interested in motivation studies are managers of people because they may provide insights into why people perform at work as they do, and as a result provide managers with techniques to improve worker productivity” (Valencia: Introduction, n.d., par. 3). The famous motivational theories include those that were conceptualized by Maslow in his Hierarchy of Needs theory (Maslow, 1954); Herzberg’s motivation – hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1974); McGregor’s Theory X – Theory Y (McGregor, 1985); as well as the Expectancy Theory by Vroom (Vroom, 1964). However, in contemporary times, although some of these theories seem to be still applicable, there were research studies which were conducted that revealed practitioner applications in clearly identifiable scenarios in an academic setting. The results of the study were presented by Kroth (2007) and shown in Table 1, presented as an Appendix. From the tabular presentation, it could be deduced that motivational theories are deemed to be effective depending on factors which include the kind of working environment, the situation at hand, the personalities of the subordinates, as well as the personality and style exuded by the leader. Motivational Techniques There were identified motivational strategies or techniques that could be considered more effective than others. Although it was asserted that the effectiveness in application of the preferred strategies would actually depend on the situation, on a more general facet, five high performance employee motivation techniques were revealed, to wit: (1) provision of challenging and meaningful work; (2) setting clear standards or targets and expectations and being able to effectively measure the performance against these standards; (3) according direct, regular, and supportive feedback; (4) designing roles, tasks, and responsibilities according to the strengths of the employees; (5) empowering people to undertake performance of their duties (Holmes, 2013). It is also important to acknowledge that leaders should be able to first make an accurate assessment of the drives and needs of the subordinates to enable designing of strategies which would cater to the employees’ needs. From Kroth’s (2007) study, the author emphasized two relevant factors that would assist in designing strategies to motivate educators and leaders, to wit: “the need for caring and the need for understanding” (pp. 28 & 29). Likewise, another important and crucial factor that instrumentally contributes to motivation is the leader. As disclosed, “leaders’ behaviors influence how followers view past successes and failure; they direct learning and other experiences that increase follower self-efficacy; and they either reinforce or weaken outcome expectancies. Follower motivation will wane if leaders raise reward expectations and do not honor them” (Kroth, 2007, p. 29). Also, in the study of Valencia (n.d.), the findings revealed that the factors that apparently consitute effect design of motivational strategies are peceived differently from the perspectives of employee and those of the managers. As disclosed, “employees placed a premium on esprit de corps or firm culture and congeniality and recognition; money was lower on the scale. Managers, on the other hand, placed a greater emphasis on monetary factors with training and recognition following well behind” (Valencia: Results, n.d., par. 1). Thus, their disparate points of views could influence and impact the attainment of organizational goals, depending on motivational strategies that are designed or implemented in their respective work settings. In the study conducted by Riley (2005) regarding the application of Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation, it was commendable for the author to acknowledge that there are immense challenges in simply indicating that one motivational theory is more effective than another. As asserted, “it would be very difficult to try to pinpoint one theory or even one technique that seems to work better or is more effective for a certain organization. The way individuals respond to different motivational styles and techniques will often clash or contradict one another” (Riley:Abstract, 2005, par. 1). As employees come and go, and with diverse scenarios and situations within a work setting, one effective motivational technique in an organization could be futile or useless in another. Riley (2005) therefore opted to focus on the managers’ style and their application of motivational theories to determine the effectiveness and impact on individuals and groups, as well as in the accomplishment of organizational goals. According to Riley’s (2005) findings, there is a degree to which “managers at different levels and companies may be applying the theories of Herzberg without actually knowing the factors specifically” (p. 29). The most viable and plausible conclusion to the study was summed from the words of Herzberg himself, as allegedly cited from the work of Leach & Westbrook (2000), to wit: “Managers do not motivate employees by giving them higher wages, more benefits, or new status symbols. Rather, employees are motivated by their own inherent need to succeed at a challenging task. The manager's job, then, is not to motivate people to get them to achieve; instead the manager should provide opportunities for people to achieve so they will become motivated” (cited in Riley, 2005, p. 30). Conclusion The current discourse has effectively succeeded in presenting motivational theories and applications that have been deemed effective in contemporary setting. As asserted, through various theories that evolved, some relevant facets and concepts were still instrumental as forming crucial part of motivational techniques that were designed in order to achieve identified goals. Accordingly, it was revealed that the diversity of results could confirm that since people’s personalities are evidently diverse and complex, and that since employees’ needs and drives are also evolving, in conjunction with varied challenges, concerns, and situations in the contemporary work setting, there simply is not one best motivational technique or strategy that could confirm applicability in a more generalized or universal workplace. The words of Herzberg, one of the experts in motivation, are worth reflecting on: rather than designing motivational techniques that are formally structured and restrictive, it could be of greater worth to provide employees with diverse opportunities to assist them in fulfilling their objectives. Only then could they be regarded as truly motivated to work. References Herzberg, F. (1974). Work and the nature of man. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples. Holmes, S. (2013). Here Are The Top 5 High Performance Employee Motivation Techniques. Retrieved from makeadentleadership.com: http://www.makeadentleadership.com/employee-motivation-techniques.html Kroth, M. (2007). Maslow—Move Aside! A Heuristical Motivation Model for Leaders in Career and Technical Education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, Vol. 44, No. 2, 5-36. Leach, F., & Westbrook, J. (2000). Motivation and Job Satisfaction in One Government research and Development Environment. Engineering Management Journal, Vol.12, Iss. 4, 3-9. Martires, C., & Fule, G. (2004). Management of Human Behavior in Organizations. Quezon City: National Bookstore. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper . McGregor, D. (1985). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Riley, S. (2005). Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Motivation Applied to the Motivational Techniques within Financial Institutions. Retrieved from Digital Commons at Eastern Michigan University: http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=honors Valencia, C. (n.d.). Motivation and Productivity in the Workplace. Retrieved from Westminster College: http://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/index.cfm?parent=2514&detail=4475&content=4798 Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Webster's collegiate dictionary. (1941). Springfield, Massachussettes: G. & C., Merriam Co. Appendix Source: Kroth, 2007, pp. 20 & 21 Source: Kroth, 2007, pp. 22 & 23 Read More