Critical Evaluation of Taylors Theories of Motivation at Work - Ford, Kellogg Company - Case Study Example

Critical Evaluation of Taylor’s Theories of Motivation at Work Grade (November 25, Critical evaluationof Taylor’s theories of motivation at work Motivation is a concept that is concerned with why people do things, as well as the driving factors that move people to behave in a certain way (Reynolds, 2000). The most undeniable fact is that the motivation of employees directly results in increased efficiency and productivity within an organization (HMI, n.d.). The performance of employees in the workplace has been viewed as a function of both ability and motivation, and the primary role of managers is to motivate workers, so they can be able to work to their full abilities (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Thus, the need to motivate employees so that they can exploit their full potential has led to the development of various theories that try to explain how the employees’ abilities can be fully utilized for the betterment of the organization and that of the employees too. According to Reilly (2003), Taylor’s theory of scientific management was developed upon the premise that money was the sole motivator for workers to perform p.1. Therefore, Taylor advocated for piece rate payment, where the workers could be paid based on their level of productivity. While holding money as the sole motivating factor for employees to become more productive in the workplace, Taylor’s theory of scientific management sought to ensure that both the employee and the organization would benefit from high productivity. However, noble as this intention was, Taylor’s theory of scientific management negated the fact that employees have needs that are more than the monetary reward they receive from the employer, if they are to contribute to the success of the organization effectively. The major challenge associated with Taylor’s theory is that it was not only economic, but also employer-centered (Reilly, 2003). In this respect, Taylor’s theory majorly focused on how employees can benefit the employer through the use of their full potential, while also benefiting themselves from their increased efforts, without focusing on how the employer could benefit the employee. Even though employees have other needs than the monetary rewards they attain from their work, it is indisputable that seeking the next wage increase is a major motivator for employee (Herzberg, 1987). Taylor’s theory offered that; to increase the productivity of workers at the workplace, one fundamental principle is that the employer is required to scientifically study and specifically define the tasks that are involved in any job (Reilly, 2003). This definition of tasks should then be followed by aligning the tasks such that they are easily and systematically performed by the employees to ensure that less time will be consumed per a given individual task. Thus simply put, Taylor’s theory required the reduction of the workforce into machine-like creatures, who are controlled to perform tasks the way humans control machines (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). The second principle under Taylor’s scientific management theory is that the workers should be trained in order to be able to effectively accomplish their specific work tasks, based on their capabilities, by training the workers to operate at their maximum efficiency (Pitsis, Kornberger & Clegg, 2011). Thus, under the Taylor’s theory, each worker is trained to accomplish certain standardized tasks repetitively. Nevertheless, despite the major weakness of the `employer-centeredness that is associated with Taylor’s theory of motivation at work, there is no doubt the theory has played a fundamental motivation role throughout the history of organizational management. The Ford Case Study Fordism borrowed and applied task-standardization and wage increment principles of Taylor’s theory of scientific management to improve its productivity and financial position. Fordism is a term that was developed to refer to the systematic production system that was developed by Henry Ford, based on standardized mass production of commodities in the manufacturing system (Pietrykowski, 1995). The concept of Fordism requires that the production system activities are divided into smaller tasks, and then the machines are customized such that they repetitively perform certain tasks at each stage of the assembly line (Pietrykowski, 1995). On the other hand, the workers operating the machines at different stages of the assembly line were also involved in undertaking repetitive production and assembling activities, and then passing over the new activity to the next machine operator. The concept of Fordism was based on workmen-workstation relationship that placed workers at specific points of the assembly line, to reduce unnecessary movements, such that an employee at a specific point of the assembly line was to perform a specified task for which the employee was best placed to accomplish (Pietrykowski, 1995). The standardization of the work tasks and specific use of individual workers for specified tasks is a concept of Fordism that is perceived to have been borrowed from Taylor’s theory of scientific management, which was the first to advocate for the task definition and specialization. The other important concept that Fordism borrowed from Taylor’s theory of scientific management is the concept of workers wage increment (Pietrykowski, 1995). In the production of the Ford’s Model-T, the Ford company had managed to increase its wage rate by almost double, and the effect of this change was felt immediately, when the mass production of the Model-T increased, while lowering the unit cost of this brand of car. The wage increment helped to lower the labor turnover for Ford Company by close to 400% annually, while the overall effect was increased incomes for the company, and a highly productive and motivated workforce (Pietrykowski, 1995). However, while recognizing the need for wage increment as a major motivational factor for workers, Herzberg (1987) holds that there are other unseen, innate-drives that accounts for the need for the employees to increase their wages p.9. Thus, if true motivation is to be achieved, the employer must target to fulfill the built-in drives of the employees, as opposed to merely increasing their wages; a concept referred to as job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1987). The underlying factors for motivation are the need for individuals to achieve their goals, while at the same time fulfilling the individual need or expectations (Reynolds, 2000). In this respect, the major disadvantage associated with Taylor’s theory is that it has only focused on helping individuals meet their goals through wage increment, but completely negated the need for the individuals to have their goals or expectations achieved. The negation of the goals and expectations of employees in turn results in the low motivation of employees that consequently affects the employer negatively. In order to overcome the limitations associated with the Taylor’s theory, there is a need to link the corporate goals with the individual employee’s goals (Reynolds, 2000). Another shortcoming associated with Taylor’s theory is the fact that the theory did not recognize the influence of the time factor on the concept of motivation. This simply means that Taylor’s theory did not recognize that the factors that motivate an individual employee changes with time and circumstances, such that the major motivating factor for all employees may be a decent wage, but that will eventually change as the individual develops more goals and expectations from the employment (Pitsis, Kornberger & Clegg, 2011). Therefore, the most important thing in workplace motivation is to ensure that the employer establishes the appropriate reward for individual employees, based on the individual needs, as employees perceive different reward and motivation systems differently. However, the motivation rewards offered to the employees should be rewards that employees perceive as being direct outcomes of their work. Thus, great attempts must be made in order to establish a clear link between an employee’s effort and the motivational reward, since if the employees cannot see this link; then no efforts will be made (Reynolds, 2000). In this respect, considering the fact that wage increment is a basic motivational reward for all employees, this reward system should be reinforced with other reward systems that are specific and tailor-made to individual employee’s goals and expectations. The combination of the wage increment motivator with other rewards that achieve the goals and expectations of the employees is a sure way of overcoming the limitations associated with purely monetary reward system of Taylor’s theory. Kellogg’s Case Study Kellogg Company is an organization that has been ranked among the top 100 best companies to work for, and also ranks as the leading producer of breakfast cereals globally(Kellogg’s, n.d.). The success of this company is highly linked to the high level of motivation of the company’s workforce, which is motivated through the application of a combination of different motivational reward systems, based on different motivational theories. The purely monetary reward system of Taylor’s theory has been employed as a major motivator for Kellogg Company’s workforce, where the company applies cash alternatives such as the option to buy and sell one’s holidays (Kellogg’s, n.d.). This motivational system gives the employees an opportunity to convert their holiday time into cash by selling their holidays to those who are interested in longer holidays than in earning more money. Such a reward system has been applied as a dual-motivational advantage for the Kellogg’s Company workforce, by putting into consideration the specific needs of the employees, where some employees are motivated by more money, while others are motivated by more time off-work and more leisure opportunities. The other Taylor’s theory concept that is applied under the Kellogg Company workforce motivation system is the division of labor concept, which entails the separation of the whole company’s production system into small component activities that are aligned to specific workforce training and capabilities (Kellogg’s, n.d.). Different production tasks in the company have been broken down into specialist tasks that are performed by employees who possess the specialized skills to accomplish the desired activities under these tasks. The fundamental basis of motivation within the workforce is job design, equity, need and expectation, which can be achieved through a variety of ways (HMI, n.d.). Taylor’s theory of motivation at work is a fundamental basis of achieving a productive workforce, since with the need to increase the wages earned, comes the need to increase efforts and productivity by the workforce. However, the major limitation with Taylor’s theory is that it focuses on a single dimension for achieving workplace motivation, while at the same time concentrating on only one basis of employee motivation; the need. This means that the theory ignores the rest of the three fundamental bases. The appropriate solution to fulfilling the four fundamental basis of employee motivation is through the use of a combination of motivational reward systems such as financial incentives, fringe benefits and the non-financial benefits such as training, promotion and job enlargement (HMI, n.d.). It is for this reason that the sole use of monetary reward for improved output as provided under Taylor’s theory has been found to be inappropriate for motivating the workforce required to accomplish the organizational goals of Kellogg’s Company as the leading breakfast cereal producer globally. Taylor’s theory of motivation at work is limited by the fact that it seeks to meet the financial needs of the employees, while negating the non-financial needs. This is detrimental for a workforce that requires the use of creativity and imagination in order to achieve the designated job tasks (Kellogg’s, n.d.). The fact that Taylor’s theory of motivation at work can help to increase productivity and profitability for an organization is not in contention (Kellogg’s, n.d.). However, according to Expectancy theory, motivation is a multiplicative function that should not rely solely on the financial incentive, but also on the expectancy construct of the employees (Ambrose, 1999). The expectancy construct of the employee goes beyond the need for the employee to have their employer meet their financial needs, to the more innate needs of the employee such as satisfaction with the job position, being seen as capable of accomplishing challenging job tasks, as well as the need perceptions of equity at the workplace (Ambrose, 1999). Therefore, one area of weakness of Taylor’s theory of motivation at work is the fact that the theory did not consider how the employees viewed the work relationship with the employer, and for that reason did not put into consideration the employees’ expectancy construct (Reilly, 2003). Through negating the employee expectancy construct, Taylor’s theory assumed that the workplace environment entails standardized procedures of accomplishing tasks, which are not likely to change either with time or with changing circumstances. The detrimental effect of the standardization assumption of the Taylor’s theory is that it negated the human needs to achieve as a fundamental basis that innately drives employees, which in turn develops the need for the employees to experience psychological growth (Herzberg, 1987). The major intrinsic psychological needs of an employee at the workplace include the need for achievement, recognition for the achievement made, the need for higher responsibilities as well as the need for growth and development through training (Herzberg, 1987). On the other hand, the job-dissatisfaction avoidance factors include the need for job security as well as the salary scale attached to the job. In this respect, Herzberg (1987) recognizes that the wage increment motivational proposition of the Taylor’s theory of motivation at work is a necessity for avoiding job dissatisfaction by the employees. However, there is recognition that the job salary scale needs of the employees must be accompanied by the fulfillment of the psychological needs of the employees. The complexity associated with the concept of motivation is the recognition of the fact that human nature presents innate needs that are either very irrational or highly varied and adjustable to certain situations, such that these needs will always remain a challenge to meet (Herzberg, 1987).Thus, it is instrumental for organizational managers to remain as pragmatic and occasional as possible, to be able to effectively meet the innate needs of the employees at the workplace. The assertion by Herzberg (1987) that Taylor’s theory is weak in its assumption of the monetary reward for improved output has also been reinforced by the subsequent Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. This theory has ranked the psychological motivation needs of individuals into a hierarchy that is influenced both by the time and the circumstantial factors of the individual employees (Kellogg’s, n.d.). Through responding to the realization of the fact that the employees have more than the financial needs satisfaction, Kellogg Company has applied the Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs theory to meet both the financial and the non-financial needs of the employees of the company. This has been achieved through offering competitive salaries as a fundamental aspect of the employees’ psychological needs, offering a safe work environment to meet the safety needs of the employees and operating the weekly information sharing group ‘huddles’ to meet the social needs of the employees (Kellogg’s, n.d.). Additionally, Kellogg Company offers the annual employees appraisals to fulfill the esteem needs of the employees, while also offering the employees challenging tasks such as ownership of projects by employees, in order to meet the self-actualization needs of the employees (Kellogg’s, n.d.). This operational system has helped Kellogg Company overcome the disadvantages associated with the monetary reward for improved output that has been assumed by Taylor’s theory. References Ambrose, M. L. & Kulik, C. (1999). Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management 25(3), 231–292. Herzberg, F. (1987). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, 1-16. HMI. (n.d.). The Importance of Employee Motivation, 1-2. Kellogg’s (n.d.). Building a better workplace through motivation, 1-4. Pietrykowski, B. (1995). Fordism at Ford: Spatial Decentralization and Labor Segmentation at the Ford Motor Company, 1920–1950. Economic Geography 71, 383-401. Pitsis, T., Kornberger, M. & Clegg, S. (2011). “Chapter 2: Approaches to Organisation and Management” in Managing and organisations: an introduction to theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Reilly, R. (2003). The Link between Pay and Performance. The Institute for Employment Studies. Reynolds, K. (2000). ‘By the time you have read this you will be incredibly rich!’ Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education. Read More