Motivational Theories of Organisational Work - Essay Example

Organisational Analysis The purpose of this essay is to provide a critical discussion on organisational analysis in regards to the following ment: “A happy worker is a productive worker.” The format that this paper will utilize is to highlight some of the major motivational theories and then go into detail as to how these theories may or may not address worker happiness in relation to productivity. Firstly a deeper explanation of the actual statement will be discussed in order to determine possible meanings. When the term ‘happy worker’ is used one could postulate that this is in relation to several different types of happiness. A person could be considered ‘happy’ at their job yet have a miserable life outside the office and visa versa. Moreover an individual can find happiness in both their professional career and personal life. For the purpose of this paper the discussion will be limited to workplace satisfaction and work/life balance satisfaction. Building on this previous point, the idea of a productive worker is generally in relation to some sort of metric that is used to measure productivity. It may be the case that a worker considers him or herself happy and may consider themselves productive yet these people may not necessarily be considered productive by more senior officials. So for the purpose of this paper productivity will be discussed in relation to measurable productivity. The first major theory that will be discussed is Expectancy Theory which according to Quickmba (2010) is a motivational theory which postulates that individuals make decisions regarding various behaviours according to how expectancy probability, instrumentality probability and valance all interact to create a motivation force. Building on this point, expectancy probability is the perceived effort vs. performance relationship in which one expects that a given amount of effort above and beyond what is necessary will generate a better performance. In regards to instrumentality probability this forms the backbone of the perceived performance vs. reward relationship insofar as if the additional effort is put into increasing performance will this additional performance return dividends. Lastly there is valance is simply the person specific value placed on rewards and how these aforementioned rewards will affect the individual in question. So if for example an individual were to put in a great deal of additional effort at work at a widget factory the first issue is if this additional effort will generate more widgets, if so one must question if this elevated production output is likely to generate a reward (like a promotion), if it is the case that this action would likely generate a promotion would this promotion be a desired outcome? If the answer to any of these issues is ‘no’ then it is likely that the person will not engage in putting in additional effort and may indeed not be satisfied with their work environment. The relevance of his motivational theory to the stated sentence is in the linking of rewards with happiness. With expectancy theory the idea of a happy worker is one who believes that rewards bring happiness and rewards are achieved through productivity. If it is the case that the rewards used do not bring happiness to an employee that it is likely that that person would be neither happy nor productive. As far as goal setting theory is concerned, according to Manager Mentor (2010) it is the case that on an individual level it is important that people set goals that are clear (so that boundaries are clearly set), challenging (so as to stimulate the individual), and achievable (so that failure is unlikely). From this perspective one could postulate that in a typical organisation in order to achieve success specific goals can result in better performance through quantitative terms and defined deadlines. Moreover if it is the case that if the goal set is to be challenging than one could expect a higher degree of performance from an employee, however this is a delicate balance because I a goal becomes unachievable than it may be the case that this discourages workers. If there is constant mentoring throughout the process this could allow for employees in aiding in their own personal growth and development. There is little question that this motivational theory may indeed aid in performance in an organisation where complications arise is in the concept that performing well necessarily generates happiness. Is it necessarily the case that an employee that has high performance is happy? In many circumstances this may indeed be the case however it is not necessarily the case. Take for example an employee that works sorting mail, they may have a lofty goal of sorting a large quantity of mail in a day, and if they do achieve this goal they may still be discouraged in their job function. From the perspective of equity theory, Adams (1965) had postulated that there is a balance between what we put into our jobs and the enjoyment that we get out of our jobs (So called inputs and outputs). How we determine the value of our inputs and outputs is through a thorough comparison of other points of references which are typically our friends, colleagues, co-workers etc. In this regard happiness can be achieved through finding an individuals perfect balance between what they at a micro level want to put into their job (Through measures like hard work, enthusiasm, support etc.) and what they want to receive from their work (commissions, pay, responsibility, stimuli etc). It may be the case that this theory holds true insofar as if people do strike a balance in their workplace environment then they may be able to generate a solid degree of happiness from the aforementioned environment. The one shortcoming of this theory is the idea that people may be satisfied by putting in only the bare minimum and this in turn would not be in keeping with the concept that a happy worker is a productive worker. Under equity theory, a happy worker may in fact be an unproductive worker. When taking into a consideration a model such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943) one recognizes that happiness comes from a variety of factors that satisfy self actualization, esteem, love/belonging, safety and physiological needs. From this perspective, an employee who is considered by all measures ‘productive’ one could postulate that they are satisfying some of the components of each of thee aforementioned categories. By being employed a person is able to earn money in order to buy ood shelter etc. which satisfies physiological needs. By being employed a person is able to achieve a degree of stability and security which satisfies safety needs. In terms of belonging needs, be nature of being employed within an organisation an employee can develop friendships etc.. Moreover when an employee works hard they are in effect achieving a degree of respect from employers and others which satisfies some esteem needs. Lastly in terms of self actualization needs an individual by nature of being employed may improve their problem solving abilities, break down prejudices etc. So from Maslow’s (1943) perspective one could conclude that by being a productive worker one is in fact satisfying many of the requirements of being a happy person/worker. However that is not to say that in many circumstances a person can indeed be a very productive worker and not entirely be a happy worker when utilizing this model. Perhaps a person buries themselves in their work to compensate for other shortcomings in their life, or perhaps a person simply trudges on with their job in order to simply satisfy their safety hierarchy of needs. According to a DeVries (2004) it is the case that happy workers are indeed better workers. When looking at this argument from a contrary perspective a depressed worker who sought treatment for this clinically diagnosed condition was more productive at work and missed fewer workdays than untreated persons, in which the added additional productivity added up to a value of $2,601 per depressed full time employee. However the measurement of happiness is slightly skewed in this instance as it may be the case that a person seeking treatment for depression may not necessarily be considered “Happy” rather it may be the case that they simply become “Not depressed”. However this does indicate that on the other side of the spectrum that “An unhappy worker is not a productive worker.” In conclusion the different motivational theories offer different opinions on whether or not a happy worker is a productive worker. In some circumstance such as with equity theory, it may be that person gets more out of their job when they contribute more however that is not to say that this necessitates that a person self motivates to the point of reaching happiness. With goal setting an individual may perform better when clearly structured goals are set but does this necessitate that a person becomes happy when they achieve goals? Moreover when looking at Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, by performing well at a job a person satisfies many of the criteria that can theoretically make a person happy however this may not always be the case. Lastly when examined conversely it is argued that an unhappy worker is less productive however this does not necessarily mean that the opposite holds true. One could logically conclude that happiness is a subjective element in a job, whilst some people may derive extreme satisfaction and happiness from working hard and achieving goals that does not necessitate that all people do so. References Adams, J. (1965) Inequity in Social Exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. DeVries, L. (2004) Happy Workers, Better Workers: Treatment Makes Depressed Workers More Productive, Managers Happier. CBS NEWS. [online] Available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/24/health/webmd/main657624.shtml Accessed on March 26th 2010. The Manage Mentor (2010) Performance Goals: A Paradox-Part 1. [online] Available at http://www.themanagementor.com/kuniverse/kmailers_universe/sm_kmailers/SHRM_0602_1.htm Accessed on March 26th 2010. Maslow, A (1943) A theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. QuickMBA (2010) Management: Expectancy Theory [online] Available at http://www.quickmba.com/mgmt/expectancy-theory/ Accessed on March 26th 2010. Read More