Theories of Motivation Within Organisations - Essay Example

Theories of Motivation and how they are used within Organisations Introduction Productivity in an organization is a key factor for an organization to remain competitive in the environment it functions. Remaining competitive becomes even more relevant to survival in this era of globalization, increasing the significance of productivity. In normal course there three factors that productivity is dependent, namely the availability of resources, the ability of employees to perform what is required of them and the employees willingness to perform or motivation. Motivation is thus an employee behaviour dependent factor that impact on the productivity of an organization. Of these three factors motivation gains in importance, as in the absence of willingness to perform, the availability of resources and the ability to do what is required loses significance and the absence of motivation could also lead to employee behaviours that have a negative impact on the productivity of the organization (Li, 2008). The association of motivation to employee behaviour makes the concept of motivation a complex issue for study. This complexity has led to motivation being the subject of rigorous study for a long period of time from which have sprung several theories that try to explain the framework of motivation and how they it can be used to mould employee behaviour toward the goals and objectives of an organization. For an organization to employ motivation productively within the organization there is a need of the proper understanding of motivation and the means of productive use of motivation. Motivation and Theories of Motivation The term motivation is frequently encountered in management studies, but is a concept that has proven to be difficult in terms of a common and agreed definition among scholars of the subject. From the perspective of human behaviour, the Rainey 2000, p.20, gives an acceptable meaning for motivation as “the degree to which a person is moved or aroused to expend effort to achieve some purpose”. This meaning given to motivation makes motivation at the workplace as the extent to which an individual tries to work hard and well in terms of the arousal, direction and continued efforts. A major issue for theoretical scholars of motivation has been trying to differentiate between motivation and other affective and attitudinal states of employees like job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the affective or attitudinal state of an individual with regard to emotions on the job and the several aspects of it. Job satisfaction does have a behavioural component in that it impacts on the continuity of the individual in the organization or whether the individual chooses to leave the organization. Yet job satisfaction need not lead to good performance by the individual, for individuals may be satisfied with their job, but not necessarily motivated to perform better. In addition individuals who are well motivated may demonstrate dissatisfaction in terms of the standards they set for themselves or in terms of the rewards received. Another issue with motivation is the difficulty that is faced for an adequate and comprehensive measure of motivation. An examination of the meaning of motivation as the willingness to expend more effort towards the required objectives begs the question of motivation being an aspect of attitude of an individual or the behaviour of an individual at the workplace. Furthermore there arises the question whether the measurement of motivation is sufficient if it were to merely cover individual’s assessment of what constitutes hard work or trying to perform well. (Rainey, 2000). Motivational theories attempt to provide definitive answers as to why some individuals at the workplace show greater willingness to expend more effort and outperform others, while some others expend just the required effort to maintain a semblance of performance, while the remaining prefer to expend as little effort as possible and thereby under perform. No definitive answers have been found as yet and there is no motivational theory that answers the question comprehensive, leading to the requirement to analyze the more relevant motivational theories for a proper understanding of motivation and its use in organizations (Arnold & Krappels, 1996). Attempts to understand human motivation can be traced back to Greek philosophy and the concept of hedonism as an influencing factor of human behaviour. Such an attempt to understand human behaviour is reflected in the later Western philosophers like Locke, Bentham and Mills much later during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. However, by the end of the nineteenth century the attempt to for greater clarity on motivation shifted from the study of philosophy to the newly emerging branch of psychological studies. This migration resulted in human behavioural scholars attempting create models of motivation that provided better explanations for motivation (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). Skipping the initial five decades of human behaviour scientists’ attempts on explaining motivation through more empirical oriented theoretical frameworks brings us to the need hierarchy theory of Maslow developed by 1954. According to this theory of Maslow the development of individuals witnesses the climbing up of a hierarchical path that is founded on the fulfilment of a series of needs that are prioritized. These needs have a physiological, safety and security, belongingness, esteem and self-actualization basis. Maslow also proposed that the first three of these needs are deficiency needs of individuals, which needs to be achieved before they develop a healthy personality, while last two reflect growth needs of an individual that are related to the achievements of the individual and the development of individual potential. Motivating the behaviour of an individual according to Maslow was thus satisfying the individual needs at the different levels of the developmental ladder in this hierarchical path. Further adaptation of this model occurred when Alderfer in 1972 trimmed these hierarchical needs of an individual that are required to be satisfied to three consisting of existence, relatedness and growth (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). A similar theory on motivation built around the needs of an individual was also developed by McClelland within a decade of Maslow’s hierarchy theory. McClelland ignored the concept of a hierarchy in the needs of an individual put forward by Maslow preferring a focus on the motivational strengths of several, but clearly defined needs within an individual consisting of achievement, affiliation and power or autonomy. In the perception of McClelland, at any moment in time, within any individual there reposed several competing needs that helped to motivate behaviour, when they were activated (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). Thus McClelland’s motivational theory though based on needs was in sharp contrast to Maslow’s motivational theory founded on a hierarchy of needs. McClelland’s model provided more clarity to needs of an individual at the work place over the abstract conceptualization of Maslow in terms of these needs. This clarity offered by McClellan allows for the needs of an individual to be divided into two sets consisting of achievement, which may be defined as behaviour that is focused on competing against a standard of excellence and power, which may be defined as need in the individual to retain control in the work environment. McClelland thus laid the path for studying and using these actors within any individual as the means to motivation (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). Frederick Herzberg’s dual factor or motivation-hygiene theory emerged a little later challenging the basic assumptions of that time that on satisfying and motivating individuals. Based on his observations, he refused to accept the assumptions that adequate pay packets contributed to job satisfaction; every individual at work needed to develop psychologically and interpersonal relationships increased levels of satisfaction among employees. Instead he found that job satisfaction was present when employees were provided with opportunities to experience achievement, recognition, interesting work, enhanced responsibilities, advancement or learning, while dissatisfaction was present as a result of company policies that lacked fairness, incompetent supervisors, poor interpersonal relations, poor working conditions, unfair salary and lack of job security. An analysis of the factors that cause job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not the same. So, Herzberg differentiated between the factors that caused job satisfaction, calling them motivator factors and the factors that led to dissatisfaction, terming them as hygiene factors. From this differentiated, Herzberg proposed that there were two psychological dimension to motivation, namely satisfaction or no satisfaction and dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction and it was the motivating factors that influenced the state of satisfaction or no satisfaction, while the hygiene factors impacted on the state of dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction (Sachau, 2007). Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory came under severe criticism as it relied mostly on a single and biased research methodology and the lack of clarity in the theory, making it difficult to test. This led to the decline of the motivation-hygiene theory. However, more recent emerging research in the field of positive psychology strongly supports the basic tenets of the dual factor theory of Herzberg making it relevant to motivation in present day organizations (Sachau, 2007). The understanding of motivation theories would be incomplete without an evaluation of cognitive theories on motivation, with particular reference to the expectancy-valence theory. The basis of the expectancy-valence theory is that the behaviour of an individual at work has a definite purpose, is directed towards a goal and essentially based on conscious intentions. The credit of the initial systematic formulation of an expectancy-valence theory goes to Vroom in his proposition of such a theory in relation to workplace in 1964. Vroom’s proposed that employees had a tendency for rational evaluation of several on-the-job related behaviours available to them and then opting for the behaviour that in their opinion was likely to result in their most valued rewards related to their work and outcomes, like a promotion or a pay hike. This meant that employees tended to view the attractiveness of a particular task and energy that needed to be invested in it on the basis of their beliefs of its accomplishments giving them the outcomes that they valued (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). This motivational model of Vroom suggests that for the rewards system to be used as an effective motivational tool three key relationships have to be present. The three key relationships lie in the requirement for employees to believe that they possess the requisite skills or abilities to achieve the set performance objectives, will receive material and non-material rewards on achieving these performance targets and that the promised rewards have value for the employees. The first of these key relationships may be considered as the expectancy relationship, while the second as the instrumentality relationship and the third as the valence relationship. According to this expectancy-valence theory the lack of anyone of the three key relationships would lead to a depression in the motivation of an employee (Schepman & Richmond, 2003). Based on the motivational model of Vroom, Porter and Lawler in 1968 proposed a model that that consisted of intrinsic and extrinsic elements to work motivation. Intrinsic motivation occurs when employees are involved in an activity that they find interesting and derive immediate satisfaction from the activity itself. Extrinsic motivation is different in that there is the requirement for instrumentality between the activity and some separable outcomes in the form of tangible rewards or verbal rewards, such that satisfaction is not derived from the work activity itself, but from the extrinsic outcomes towards which the activity points to. This model suggests that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are additive and result in total job satisfaction (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Use of Theories of Motivation in Organizations An examination of the theories of motivation show that there is no framework that provides a solution for motivating individuals at work that may be applicable in all kinds of situations in different organizations. The choice of motivational framework for an organization gets even more complex, when we take into consideration the disparities that exist at the workplaces of organizations, as a result of the nature of the organization, the business activity of the organization, the structure of the organization and the management strategies of the organization. However, organizations do use motivation as the means to remain competitive by opting for the motivational framework that they believe works best for them. This is because there is a persistent theme in all these different motivation theories and that theme according to Arnold and Krappels 1996 p.8 “is the idea that the focus of employee behaviour is to satisfy core set of needs, which include – but go beyond – economic needs”. Several factors have enhanced the need for organizations to remain competitive in the new economy of the new millennium, which include e-commerce, the presence of dot com companies and increasing globalization. In this new business environment, organizations find that a motivated workforce provides them with the required competitive edge, as more and more organizations are realizing it is the quality of their technology and their human assets that will determine the future (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). It may at first seem an enormous task to plough through the many seemingly different theoretical frameworks to identify the suitable approach to motivation in an organization. A deeper look at these difference, however, show that irrespective of the presence of flaws or limitations the motivational theories do not contradict each other, but rather focus on different aspects of the motivation process. Though it may not be possible to tie all the motivational theories into a single universally applicable theory, it is still possible to utilize these different aspects of the motivation process within organizations to create a motivated workforce and that is exactly how progressive organizations use motivational theories (Locke & Latham, 2004). An example as to how organizations use motivation theories is in the motivation of the diverse modern workforce, which requires a better understanding of what drives this complicated disparate workforce. A proper understanding of the various motivation theories has enabled organizations to use organizational behaviour modification to reinforce workforce behaviour appropriately towards achieving personal and organizational goals (Buhler, 2003). From the motivational framework of Vroom and its subsequent development through Porter and Lawler, organizations are aware that employees do not achieve satisfaction through extrinsic factors of pay and prestige, but also need to have their intrinsic factors satisfied to be motivated. The focus of motivation thus shifts to an individual basis (Hudy, 1992). In a diverse work force it may appear that this focus on individual basis is cumbersome. However even though the modern workforce may be diverse, the disparity is manageable, as there is a sharing of many typical traits, allowing for identifying commonly shared traits and creating groups. Moving on to McClelland’s three relevant needs in work situations consisting of affiliation, achievement and power of autonomy, it becomes possible to identify groups that require each of these intrinsic factors to be satisfied for motivation. In this manner it is possible by the use of a combination of motivational theories that focus on different aspects of motivation to arrive at a motivation solution for any organization irrespective of the complexity and the situation of the company (Hudy, 1992). Conclusion The complex nature of the phenomenon of motivation has given rise to many different theories of motivation bereft of a single solution. Yet, the differences on these motivational theories essentially lie in their focus on different aspects of motivation. Organizations utilise thus difference in the focus on the disparate elements of motivation, by a combination of two or more motivational theories to arrive at a motivation solution that is appropriate for the workforce of the organization. Literary References Arnold, V. D. & Krapels, R. H. 1996, ‘Motivation: A Reincarnation of Ideas’, Industrial Management, vol.38, no.3, pp. 8-9. Buhler, P. M. 2003, ‘Managing in the new millennium, SuperVison, vol.64, no.12, pp.20-24. Gagne, M. & Deci, E. L. 2005, ‘Self-determination theory and work motivation’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol.26, no.4, pp.331-362. Hudy, J.J. 1992, ‘The motivation trap’, HRMagazine, vol.37, no.12, pp.63-66. Li, L. 2008, ‘Human Motivation in the Work Organization’: Theories and Implications, New Asia College Academic Annual, vol. 19, [Online] Available at: http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/34/3400303.pdf (Accessed Sep. 6, 2008). Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. 2004, ‘WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT MOTIVATION THEORY? SIX RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY’, Academy of Management Review, vol.29, no.3, pp. 388-403. Rainey, G. H. 2000, ‘Work Motivation’, In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Second Edition, ed. Robert T. Golembiewsksi. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 19-42. Sachau, D. A. 2007, ‘Resurrecting the Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Herzberg and the Positive Psychology Movement’, Human Resources Development Review, vol.6, no.4, pp.377-393. Schepman, B. S. & Richmond, L. 2003, ‘Employee Expectations and Motivation: An Application from the “Learned Helplessness” Paradigm, Journal of American Academy of Business, vol.3, no.1/2, pp 405-408. Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Shapiro, D. I. 2004, ‘THE FUTURE OF WORK MOTIVATION THEORY’, Academy of Management Review, vol.29, no.3, pp.379-387. Read More