Content and Process Motivation Theories - Term Paper Example

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Early theories of motivation: critical analysis 3 F. Taylor’s motivation theory. Frederick Taylor was obviously the first to combine business practice with significant theoretical findings. Taylor assumed that material side is not the major motivational factor of employees. Instead, people need to have a comprehensive motivation in order to work more effectively. Thus, according to Taylor the factors that influence people’s motivation are not only material, but also immaterial ones. 3 The policy of “stick and carrot” Taylor suggested implied punishments for poor performance and appraisals for better working efficiency. Besides, Taylor was the first to identify other than material the needs of the employees and tried to include them into motivational process. Among the other, he hired doctors, nurses and psychologists to his company (Miner, 2005). 3 However, due to a rather simplistic understanding of human motivation, Taylor’s appeared outdated quite soon. The reasons for this were as following: 3 E. Mayo’s motivational approach 4 Content and process theories of motivation: comparisons and contrasts 4 Content theories of motivation 5 Maslow’s theory of motivation: a revolution in organizational science. During 1950s the diverse approaches to human nature were united into a broad organizational approach. This period was the heyday of organizational science as during that time major concepts that motivation were developed. The most important of such theories is obviously Abraham Maslow’s (1954) theory of motivation. Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” provided a framework for analysis why people work and how they may be motivated in the best way (McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). 5 Goal-setting theory, developed by Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, implies that the goals are the most important factors affecting the motivation and behaviour of employees. This theory emphasizes the importance of specific and challenging goals in achieving motivated behaviour. Specific goals, observing Locke and Latham, usually imply quantitative targets that motivate people to work more effectively. These goals are usually rather achievable, though not easy to achieve. Challenging goals, in their turn, are difficult but not impossible to attain. Empirical research supports the proposition that goals that are both specific and challenging are more motivational than vague goals or goals that are relatively easy to achieve (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). 8 Several factors moderate the relationship between specific and challenging goals as well as with high levels of motivation, i.e.: 8 Goal commitment, which means that the more dedicated an individual is to achieve the goal, the more he/she will be motivated to exert effort toward goal accomplishment. 8 Self-efficacy that is an employee’s belief that he/she can successfully complete a particular task. If individuals have a high degree of self-efficacy, they are likely to respond more positively to specific and challenging goals than if they have a low degree of self-efficacy (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). 8 Conclusions 9 FACTORS AND PROCESSES THAT AFFECT EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION IN ORGANIZATION Introduction Effective motivation is a corner stone of organizational functioning, development, competitiveness and, yet, effectiveness. Over the past decades, the way in which people are managed, promoted and stimulated at workplaces has become a primary key to assess and improve organizational efficiency and marketability and became a part of a general organizational strategy. In terms of globalization and rapidly changing business environment, as well as growing competitiveness on the market modern companies increasingly need to rely rather of skilled and motivated employees then on pure technologies and products. As Steve Jobs, CEO of legendary Apple Computers states, “in terms when technologies may be stolen and products may be easily duplicated by competitors the only way for a company to achieve and sustain its competitive advantage is to invest in its personnel” (Miner, 2005). At the same time, the problem of motivation is not as simple as it may seem. Complex human nature doesn’t accept a single and universal “working” stimulus which can motivate all kind of people without exceptions. The good illustration to this idea is a number of theories of motivation that have been developed in organizational science and organizational psychology during XX century. In this project I will assess key theories of employees’ motivation and examine factors and processes that may affect successful motivation. Early theories of motivation: critical analysis The first tentative ideas of motivation based on scientific principles date back to the early XX century. These ideas are usually associated with American schools of management, particularly with Frederick Taylor’s “Scientific management theory” and Elton Mayo’s “School of human relations”. These theories are considered to be non-paradigm and hence, do not relate either to content or process theories of motivation and should be examined separately. F. Taylor’s motivation theory. Frederick Taylor was obviously the first to combine business practice with significant theoretical findings. Taylor assumed that material side is not the major motivational factor of employees. Instead, people need to have a comprehensive motivation in order to work more effectively. Thus, according to Taylor the factors that influence people’s motivation are not only material, but also immaterial ones. The policy of “stick and carrot” Taylor suggested implied punishments for poor performance and appraisals for better working efficiency. Besides, Taylor was the first to identify other than material the needs of the employees and tried to include them into motivational process. Among the other, he hired doctors, nurses and psychologists to his company (Miner, 2005). However, due to a rather simplistic understanding of human motivation, Taylor’s appeared outdated quite soon. The reasons for this were as following: Taylor’s system was extremely structured and based on prescriptions and, hence, inflexible Taylor underestimated the value of human nature and people’s structure of implicit motives. This made his motivational approach a “one-way” road without deep assessment of people’s needs other than basic ones Taylor did not practice empowerment of people that is important factor of motivation. E. Mayo’s motivational approach Elton Mayo, who represents a “School of human relations” often considered antonymous to Taylor’s approach, modified Taylor’s ideas significantly. During his longitudinal classic Hawthorne experiments Mayo as well as Taylor identified that salary is not the best motivation for people. However, his findings were much deeper than those of his predecessor. Mayo found out that people are sociable by their nature and they work effectively if they receive a positive feedback from administration. Other pivotal findings of Mayo were the following: (i) people need communication during their work to perform their functions more effectively, (ii) informal groups influence people’s work significantly (iii) group moral is key mediator of working patterns in an organization (Gillespie et al, 1993). These ideas underlie Mayo’s theory of motivation (Mayo, 1946; 1949). He believed that there are several factors and processes that need to be included into the core of motivation, i.e.: Sociable character of people and their need for communication (partnership, support, etc) is a key factor that requires consideration while motivating people Informal groups and informal leadership mediate near all organizational processes, including motivation. Sometimes, as Mayo believed, informal groups and leaders may be better motivators than managers. Alternatively, they may as well hamper effective motivation. Group moral is another key factor mediating motivation. Group moral may either emphasize or slow down motivation in organization. Mayo’s ideas on motivation served a breakthrough for the rest of models that emerged in the middle XX century (Miner, 2005). Content and process theories of motivation: comparisons and contrasts Present research would be incomplete without and analysis of two broad types of motivational theories that dominate in modern organizational science. Traditionally, researchers subdivide two general types of motivational theories, i.e.: content and process ones. These theories identify different factors and processes that underline human motivation (McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). Content theories suggest that people have certain needs and desires that are internalised. In the most general meaning it means that while growing up people have internalized a number of things they want. These needs usually have a “social nature” and are learned in communication and interaction with the others. Such needs may vary from such basic needs as safety and material welfare, to self-realization and power. Content theories, in their turn, try to identify these needs and find the ways to realize them. In the other words, the major factor that determines people’s motivation is their needs. The most well-known content theories are Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, D. McGregor’s XY model, D. McClelland’s three needs approach, F. Herzberg two-factor theory and C. Alderfer’s ERG theory (McShane and Von Glinow, 2001) Process theories, on the contrary, do not focus on the employee’s needs themselves. Instead, they examine complex cognitive processes that mediate the process of motivation, i.e.: what people think when they decide whether to put effort into a particular activity or not. This determines alternative definition of these theories, i.e.: cognitive ones. The classic process or cognitive theories are J.S. Adams, V. Vroom’s theories of motivation, Locke and Latham goal-seeking theory and B. Skinner reinforcement theory (McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). As it goes from the title of both theories, content theories focus on the factors that affect motivation (i.e.: people’s structure of needs) whereas second group of theories identify the processes that follow motivation (i.e.: complex cognitive processes that mediate motivation). Respectively, partisans of content theories attempt to influence people’s needs to make motivation more effective, while adherents of processes paradigm try to assess cognitive processes that follow motivation and harness them effectively (McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). Content theories of motivation Maslow’s theory of motivation: a revolution in organizational science. During 1950s the diverse approaches to human nature were united into a broad organizational approach. This period was the heyday of organizational science as during that time major concepts that motivation were developed. The most important of such theories is obviously Abraham Maslow’s (1954) theory of motivation. Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” provided a framework for analysis why people work and how they may be motivated in the best way (McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). Abraham Maslow defined five general needs of people: basic needs, safety needs, social needs, need of affiliation, and need of self-actualization. These needs, according to Maslow, represent a triangle where basic needs serve the fundament and need of self-actualization is the top (Figure 1). 5. Actualization 4. Need of affiliation/esteem 3. Need of Love/Belonging 2. Safety needs 1. Physiological (basic) needs Figure 1. Diagram of Maslow's hierarchy of needs Observing Maslow (1998) people can not “climb” the motivational stairs without realization of their early needs. The processes and factors that affect motivation according to Maslow’s theory may be identified as following: Factor 1 - basic needs – people need to have decent material rewards and feel assured in their future in the company Factor 2 - social needs and needs for affiliation – employees need to feel respect (affiliation) from the major executives and CEO’s, as well as have enough “personal space” for communication in the company Factor 3 - supreme needs – employees should see perspectives and opportunities of self-actualization in the company. The final idea requires more profound analysis. Maslow’s major finding was the idea that the best way to motivate people is to help them to self-actualize though their work (Maslow, 1998). This self-actualization may be achieved through the following ways: Empowerment (the key applied principle generated by Maslow), Promotion and career development Inspiring them the vitality and prestige of their work and value of the results they achieve, etc. Maslow’s idea brought to life a number of studies on motivation (Price, 2000). The key works to be mentioned are D. McGregor’s “X and Y theory of management”, D. McClelland’s theory of three needs, and F. Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory. David McGregor’s theory of motivation is now considered nonetheless important than Maslow’s classic hierarchy of needs. In his model which is much based on Maslow’s theory, Douglas McGregor looked in depth of human nature. Observing Taylor’s and Mayo’s approaches and analyzing his own business experience McGregor decided that all people may be subdivided on two types and each of them requires brand different motivational strategies (McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). In defining these subtypes of employees McGregor subdivided Maslow’s hierarchy into the lower order (X Theory) and higher order (Y Theory). Thus, he achieved two following types of people: X-type employees are lazy and not willing to work. They are pessimists and are not willing to accept the responsibility. Therewith, the managers need to adopt more authoritarian style of motivation (more stick than carrot) to make such people work Y-type employees, reversely, are self-motivated, willing to work and eager to accept greater responsibility. Besides, they are more participative and creative. According to McGregor, such people require only slight “motivational push” and need more appraisals than punishments (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). Thus, summarizing McGregor’s findings and fitting them into the objectives of present project I need to underline that major factors affecting the process of motivation lie in the nature of an employee. Thus, it is an employee’s type of personality that requires certain type of motivation. Later in 1970s, American researcher William Ouchi expanded McGregor’s XY approach through adding Z variable. Upon analyses of Japanese organizational performance, Ouchi identified that people are innately self motivated to not only do their work, but also are loyal towards the company, and want to make the company succeed. Thus, the best way to motivate such people is empowerment and promotion. A manager, hence, should work as a “coach” allowing the workers to take most of decisions (Miner, 2005). D. McClelland’s theory of three needs was another milestone in the development of modern organizational science. While McGregor believed in the inborn traits of people that further shape their personal types, David McClelland stated that employee’s specific needs are acquired over time and shaped by unique life experiences. Motivation of people is particularly influenced by three of these needs, i.e.: achievement, affiliation and power (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). People with a high need for achievement (N-Ach) try to avoid both low-risk and high-risk situations. They need a regular feedback and appraisals from managers. High achievers should be given challenging projects with reachable goals (McClelland, 1975). People with a high need for affiliation (N-Affil) need harmonious relationships with other people and need to feel accepted by their social environment. They easily conform to the social norms and group pressure. Such people are best motivated in teams and through informal leadership (McClelland, 1975). Employees with high need for power (N-Pow) subdivide on two types – personal and institutional. Those needing personal power want to direct others, which is often undesirable. People, who need institutional power (or social power), need to organize and direct their efforts on further goals of organization. The working way to motivate both types of people is to provide such “power seekers” with the opportunity to manage others (McClelland, 1975). Thus, McClelland’s theory of three needs as well focuses on personal traits of the people and specific factors and processes that affect motivation should be identified in human personality. To my mind, the factors that affect motivation in the given case are wrong identification of people’s types (1), misinterpretation of their needs (2), and mistaken motivational approaches to each type of people (3). F. Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory proposed two-factor theory of motivation in the workplace. According to his theory people are influenced by two key factors, i.e.: hygiene factors and motivational factors (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). Hygiene factors, observing Frederick Herzberg, are very important though they are not true motivators. Instead, they rather provide general “working atmosphere” through providing acceptable physical environment, payments, benefits, relationships with co-workers, etc. Instead, motivational factors are responsible for true motivation of people. They include autonomy of people, challenge, creative opportunities, professional growth, etc. Thus, physical environment and money, as Herzberg believed, are not the factors which truly motivate people. In order to be really motivated, people need to feel the interest of their work, have creative tasks and be sure in professional growth. Clayton Alderfer’s ERG theory, proposed in the 1980s, is another modification of Maslow’s content theory that focuses on three major needs of people, i.e.: Existence, Relatedness and Growth, the acronym of ERG. Existence needs are similar to Maslow's basic needs, that is physiological and safety ones. Relatedness needs involve interpersonal relationships and may be compared with belongingness and esteem needs Maslow has identified. Growth needs, in their turn, are those related to the attainment of one's potential. They are associated with Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization needs. Dislike Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Alderfer’s ERG theory does not suggest that lower-level needs must be completely satisfied before upper-level needs become motivational. Besides, according to Alderfer, if a person is continually unable to meet his/her upper-level needs, he/she will regress and lower-level needs will become the major determinants of individual motivation. Thus, managers should focus on meeting employees’ three major needs, though without necessarily applying the proviso that, say, job-safety concerns necessarily take precedence over challenging and fulfilling job requirements (Alderfer, 1987). Process theories of motivation As briefly identified above, process theories of motivation focus on complex cognitive processes that follow motivational ones. In the other words, they examine what and how people think when they decide they need to work more effectively, or, on the contrary, slow down their performance. Dislike a group of content theories, process theories of motivation are not at all based on Maslow’s classic model. Hence, their nature is completely different from the above analyzed approaches. Respectively, the factors and process that affect motivation are also dislike. J. S. Adams’ equity theory is distinct from the group of “Maslow-based” theories. John Stacy Adams found out that people seek to maintain equity between what they put into job and what that they get out of it. Thus, employees need to be treated fairly in order to give more “inputs” to the organization, or, if the “outputs” seem to be lower than the inputs, they tend to reduce their efforts or dismiss. Inputs are typically time, efforts, loyalty, etc. Outputs, in their turn, are financial rewards, promotion, respect, reputation, prestige of job, etc (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). The major sources for such “weighing” are employee’s colleagues. If they are paid more for the same job or have better psychological rewards people may feel themselves dismotivated and vice versa. Thus, observing Adams, the major factor of motivation is making the people feel the balance between the inputs and outputs. If people see that the inputs are fairly and adequately rewarded by outputs they are satisfied with the work and are well motivated. If they consider that their inputs outweigh the outputs, they appear dismotivated to work (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). V. Vroom’s expectancy model as well looks for external factors and processes that determine motivation. Thus, these very external variables may affect motivational process. As well as J.S. Adams’ theory, Vroom’s model is also cognitive-based. Along with the other theorists like E. Lawler and L. Porter, Vroom supposed that people’s needs and goals are not as simple as they were viewed traditionally. According to Vroom, these are not the needs that have the motivational effects but rather people’s ideas and interpretations of these needs (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). V. Vroom supposed that employee’s performance relies on the following individual factors, i.e.: personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities. Respectively, the theory incorporates three beliefs, i.e.: valence (emotional attractiveness of the results and rewards), expectancy (expectations of own craftsmanship and professionalism in achieving certain tasks), and instrumentality (the extent to which people consider the results achievable). The final action, according to Vroom, may be formulated the following way: F = E (I x V), Where F is favourable result, E is expectancy, I is instrumentality, and V is valence. Thus, effective managers, according to Vroom, identify individual factors and assess employee’s beliefs. Respectively, in order to motivate people, the employers need to: Discover what specifically employees’ value, i.e.: what results and rewards they consider subjectively attractive and motivational. Identify what resources, training, or supervision employees need Ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that Goal-setting theory, developed by Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, implies that the goals are the most important factors affecting the motivation and behaviour of employees. This theory emphasizes the importance of specific and challenging goals in achieving motivated behaviour. Specific goals, observing Locke and Latham, usually imply quantitative targets that motivate people to work more effectively. These goals are usually rather achievable, though not easy to achieve. Challenging goals, in their turn, are difficult but not impossible to attain. Empirical research supports the proposition that goals that are both specific and challenging are more motivational than vague goals or goals that are relatively easy to achieve (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). Several factors moderate the relationship between specific and challenging goals as well as with high levels of motivation, i.e.: Goal commitment, which means that the more dedicated an individual is to achieve the goal, the more he/she will be motivated to exert effort toward goal accomplishment. Self-efficacy that is an employee’s belief that he/she can successfully complete a particular task. If individuals have a high degree of self-efficacy, they are likely to respond more positively to specific and challenging goals than if they have a low degree of self-efficacy (Miner, 2005; McShane and Von Glinow, 2001). Conclusions Regardless of the great number of motivation theories all of them can be generally divided into two big groups, i.e.: content and process theories. These groups of theories focus on different factors and processes that determine and affect people’s motivation. Content theories (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, D. McGregor’s model, D. McClelland’s three needs model and F. Herzberg two-factor theory) identify the implicit needs of the people and describe the way these needs may be achieved the best way. Thus, the major factors that affect motivation process in this group of theories are people’s needs. Process theories (J.S. Adams and V. Vroom’s theories) on the contrary explore people’s cognitive processes in respect to motivation. They believe that people are motivated not with the true needs, but rather with what they think of them as well of the work in general. Thus, the key process that affects the motivation in this range of theories is the cognitive process that incorporates people’s reflection over their needs, their work, and other variables. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Alderfer, C. P. An Intergroup Perspective on Group Dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch (editor), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 1987, 190-222. Gillespie, R., Galambos, L., Gallmam, R. (1993) Manufacturing Knowledge : A History of the Hawthorne Experiments (Studies in Economic History and Policy: USA in the Twentieth Century) Cambridge University Press. Maslow on Management (1998). Deborah Stephens and Gary Heil (Eds.) NY: Wiley, 1998. Mayo, E. (1949). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mayo, E. 1946. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. (2nd ed). – New York. Mayo, E. 1949. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. - New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. McClelland, D. C. (1975) Power: the inner experience. New York: Halstead. McGregor D. 1964. Leadership and Motivation. – New York. McShane, S. and Von Glinow, A. (2001). Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill publishers Miner, J.B. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe Read More