Organisational Behaviour and Motivational Theories - Coursework Example

Motivational Theories (Name) (Institution) (Course) (Instructor’s Name) Date of submission Maslow’s motivational theory This theory stipulates that for each and every individual there are a number of needs for which he seeks to satisfy throughout his life. These needs are grouped into five levels whereby one has to satisfy one level be fore moving on to the next one. These levels are identified as: Physiological needs: Food, shelter, sexual satisfaction i.e. those needs needed for basic survival. Safety needs: The need to feel safe within your environment. Also refers to emotional and physical safety. Social Needs: The need for love, friendship and belongingness Esteem needs: The need for self respect, status and recognition from others. Self actualization: The point of reaching ones full potential. Are you capable at excelling yourself? Physiological Needs These needs comprise the basic necessities for human existence which are also considered to be biological needs necessary to support life. They include air, water, food, a relatively constant body temperature (offered by shelter) and other bodily comforts. Safety Needs Safety is basically viewed as the absence of danger in various forms. Safety needs are pursued after all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer control or motivate the thoughts and actions of an individual. At this level, arousal is obtained from the need to achieve and retain security. Unfortunately, adults have little awareness of their security needs unless they experience the absence of it such as during emergency situations or conflict and war. Children on the other hand adequately display their needs for safety due to their vulnerable age (Wood et al 2009). Social needs After satisfying safety needs, individuals pursue emotional satisfaction in the name of love affection and a sense of belonging. Maslow states that people in this level seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and isolation. Consequently, they give love and show affection in expectation of the favour to be returned (Wood et al 2009). Needs for Esteem Esteem needs are basically that. After satisfying all the needs above, individuals pursue to gain some self confident and feel their self worth. This is mostly attained by how people and situations respond to a person though it is highly determined by perception. When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. Lack of low or levels of self esteem diminish confidence breed frustrations as one feels almost worthless on the surface of the earth. Needs for Self-Actualization This is the last level and the highest. According to Maslow, it represents a complete and satisfied person. At this stage, a person seeks to pursue what he feels is what is destined for him e.g. if one was born a painter, strives to paint. The need for self actualization is usually manifested by some degree of restlessness where the source is not always obvious. Psychological needs are viewed as the most basic and are place at the base of the pyramid. According to this theory, an organization seeking to achieve optimal output from their performance must ensure that these needs are first best before aspiring to meet other needs that may arise on the side of the employees. Basically the theory argues that the need to satisfy a certain need will influence behaviour. Therefore, the higher the needs of an individual, the higher the influence it will have on the behaviour of that person. This would imply that an organization has lower influence on the behaviour of employees if it only strives to facilitate employees to achieve only basic needs. Therefore, according to Maslow, an organization should act as a facilitator in helping employees achieve their needs from the most basic to the highest and in the process receive higher output as a result of satisfaction (Wood et al 2009). Strengths of Maslow This theory is one of the most widely applied motivational theories. The fact that it is applicable in many situations from management to learning has contributed towards its popularity. Again, a lot of testing in empirical research supports the arguments of this theory. The theory also supports other proposals such as the one by William James (1892/1962) and another one by Mathes (1981) (Furnham 2005). William suggested that there are three levels of needs namely material, social and spiritual which loosely coincide with the grouping by Maslow on the other hand, Mathes proposed that the three levels of needs were physiological, belongingness, and self-actualization and considered self esteem and security as irrelevant. The theory has been used in the development of many social welfare programs. Taking cue from this theory, social programs provide basic needs to impoverished people in the hope that they will be able to meet other needs up the hierarchy and assist them reach their self actualization (Friedman et al 2008). Limitations The subdivision of needs into five groups is fine and is supported by other theories only that the idea of hierarchy fails. Cassidy et al (2009) say that it is wrong and misleading to assume that all persons who have managed to meet their basic needs are moving towards achieving their emotional and safety needs. He argues that in the corporate America, there are a number of high ranking officials who lack sense of belonging and have even failed to realize their purpose in life as the theory suggests. On the contrary, people living in the streets and relying on handouts have shown more optimism in life and receive and show more affection than other people that have already met those needs as per the Maslow’s model. The Maslow’s model actually deviates from a humanistic point of view by focusing on needs than on capabilities. Instead of providing a methodology to which one can meet his needs, the theory just outlines a process that is not even feasible as shown above. Therefore, given that the theory has been used in many social programs in and outside the US, it implies that the theory offers no solution to poverty reduction (Barling 2007). The author further argues that the application of the theory in management is flawed as it ignores values, a very important component in organizational management and HR policy. He says that the application of the theory in organizations is somehow impossible as organizational issues might limit self actualization in an organizational context where one has to stick to job description but not what he perceives to be what ‘he was born to do’. In most cases, organizational goals might differ with one’s self actualization. Application This theory is useful insetting up employee remuneration packages and incentives. It agues that in order for employees to perform, their basic needs must first be met which are directly linked with remuneration. The other needs that arise after these can be met through various ways. Cassidy et al (2009) recognize the importance of this theory in carrying out supervisory roles in an organization. They say that unfulfilled needs motivate employees rather than the fulfilled needs. In this regard, the management may knowingly withhold some needs for their employees in order to motivate them to achieve them. Hey argue that individuals who have satisfied all their needs in the Maslow’ hierarchy of needs levels have very low motivation levels. This model has also been used by organizations in disaster management and those involved in corporate social responsibility programs. Cassidy et al (2009) identify the Katrina Hurricane disaster as one pointer of the applicability of this model. They say that organizations that sought to help the affected persons mainly dealt with providing the basic amenities under the psychological needs such as food and shelter. In the later stages, other needs such as restring the infrastructure of the region and also stabilizing the industries in the region to ensure economic safety of the people. The expectancy theory This theory postulates that a person is highly motivated to perform a certain task if only he expects his efforts to be rewarded accordingly. According to its developer, Victor H. Vroom an individual will pursue a goal if he/she believes in the worth of that goal and the change it can bring about to him/her in terms of rewards and also the recipient of such efforts. Furnham (2005) says “the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectancy that the act will be followed by a given consequence (or outcome) and on the value of the attractiveness of that consequence specifically to the actor” (p.126). Koontz and Weihrich (2006) state that this argument is also strongly supported by Martin Luther King’s observation that “everything that is done in this world is dose in hope.” Essentially, people hope that increasing their efforts towards a certain cause or process will be rewarded accordingly. As such, motivation is a product of the anticipated worth an individual places on a goal and the chances he see of achieving that goal. Koontz and Weihrich (2006) summarize this into a simple formula Force= valence x expectancy The above theory, force is the motivation, valence is the strength of an individual’s preference for an outcome and expectancy is the probability that a particular action will leas to a desired outcome. In situations where an individual is indifferent towards an outcome, valence is zero while in situations where an individual is against such a goal, the lance is negative. Strengths The strengths in this theory over the other motivational theories lies in its ability to recognize the role of individual need and motivation of workers sin the workplace rather than the workplace situations only. This aspect in the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory which assumes that individual goals and organizational goals are harmonized which is not the case in this theory. This theory recognizes that there exists differences between organizational and individual goals hence the need to align them something which is more realistic. This feature makes the theory most applicable in managing individual objectives in given business processes in an organization (Wood et al 2010). The expectancy theory assumes that job motivation and is not equivalent to job performance. It argues that personal attributes influence job performance and not necessarily the qualifications. Individuals may have the same qualifications but differ in performance which this theory links to differences in perceptions and opinions regarding certain situations. Therefore, under performance is not a direct result of poor or low motivation levels but rather a misunderstanding of the expectations as spelt out in the rules and responsibilities section of the job description (Dubrin 2008). Limitations The same assumption that strengthens this theory also weakens it. The assumption that the management is only responsible for playing a facilitating role where employees’ valence will lead to higher motivation is difficult to practice in real life. This theory oversimplifies motivation as a function of valence and expectation in terms of rewards. From this theory, it is apparent that people are only motivated extrinsic values such as money hence a requisite for greed and corruption in an organization. It argues job satisfaction and the quest for self satisfaction have no role in motivating workers. Contrary to this argument, a number of top ranking managers have been quoted as saying that they are motivated to perform well in certain companies in order to leave a long lasting legacy in such companies. Such legacies might be in form of expansion of companies, introduction of new brands, expansion of markets, and positive growth in stock price etc. while the management might find it is necessary to recognize such achievements through rewards, the individual is not primarily motivated by the rewards. The great emphasis on rewards which in most cases tend to be monetary such as in form of bonuses, or position encourage greed an corruption in the workplace. The allure of personal goals may tempt some individuals to use unacceptable means to achieve them which is detrimental to the whole organization (Friedman, et al 2008). The development of the McClelland’s acquired needs theory pointed out the existence of other needs such as achievement affiliation and power which somehow overshadowed the relevance of this theory. This exposes the weakness of this theory in ignoring some important needs (Dubrin 2008). The Porter and Lawler motivation model was developed to enhance this model. Consequently, the expectancy theory is viewed as somehow outdated as more and more issues come up in the world of organizational management and motivation needs. The Porter and Lawler model added the probability receiving the reward plus the energy the actor believes is needed to accomplish the action into the equation (Koontz & Weihrich). Application The expectancy theory is most helpful to managers when it comes to understanding the different attributes and characters of different employees. Through this theory, manager should be able to understand an employee’s valence and attach it to different rewards in order to induce motivation. A mismatch of the valence and the rewards could be disastrous and in actual sense lead to decrease performance and low motivation. Managers should also be able to tie organizational goals with rewards systems. Personal goals should only come second to organization goals though the job description often matches personal goals to those of the organization This theory is best applied in employee appraisal systems. The major aspect of this theory that places on higher ground in the appraisal system is that it recognizes the fact that job performance is not a direct result of motivation as other factors come into play. Consequently, it challenges monetary rewards systems which are favoured by many organizations as a way of motivating employees (Friedman et al 2008). Conclusion Both of these theories are best suited for different situations. The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory works best in disaster management and the setting up of remuneration. On the other hand, the expectancy theory is best suited in enhancing individual output. The later theory is also useful in employee management as the HR has to match job positions with the personality of their employees and their personal goals matched to those of the organization. All in all, there is no particular theory that is superior to the other as they all fit to different situations as discussed in their applicability. References Barling, J. (2007). A critical review of the application of Maslow's motivation theory in industry. Perspectives in Industrial Psychology 3 (1) 1-21 Cassidy, C. Kreitner, B. & Kreitner, R. (2009). Supervision: Setting People Up for Success. Perth: Cengage Learning Dubrin, A. (2008). Essentials of management. 8th ed. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008 Friedman, B., Cox, P. & Maher, L. (2008). An Expectancy Theory Motivation Approach to Peer Assessment. Journal of Management. 2008 vol. 32 no. 5 580-612 Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behaviour at work: the individual in the organization. Sydney: Psychology Press Koontz, H. & Weihrich. (2006). Essentials of management 7th ed. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill, 2006 Latham, G. (2007). Work motivation: history, theory, research, and practice. Melbourne: Sage. Wood, J., Zeffane, R., Fromholtz, M., Wiesner, R.,Creed, A., Schermerhorn, J., et al. (2010). Organisational behaviour: Core concepts and applications (2nd ed.). Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons. Read More