Employee Motivation - Google - Case Study Example

Employee Motivation Professor (Tutor) The Name of the School (University) The City and State Date Employee Motivation The following essay aims at discussing the following statement: “Motivation of employees is one of the most important processes that managers should develop for productive organisations”. All companies rely on their employees to be successful even if not solely, their input is significant in the success of the organization. Even financial success of an organization is dependent on how well employees perform in their job. According to Thomas, (2009, p. 12) almost all employees enter the workplace with good intentions. However, if their work, ideas, and skills go unnoticed and unappreciated for some time, even the most talented begin to fade away or reduce their performance. Motivation is part of human nature and understanding what or how to motivate people is a daily experiences across different disciplines and experiences. Moreover, motivation is at the core of most people actions. Managers are needed to deliver results or productivity through employees. When managers do not recognize and appreciate employees, their productivity is bound to reduce or fade away. This makes it essential for managers to understand and practice employee motivation for increased productivity. The essay will discuss employee motivation by offering an example of Google Inc. and McGregor’s theory X and theory Y’s of employee motivation. According to Thomas, (2009, p. 15) motivation involves giving a person the motive for action. One of the famous sayings that relates to motivation is that one can take a donkey to the river, but they cannot make it to drink the water unless it is thirsty. The same case applies in the organizational setting. According to Thomas, (2009, p. 16) employees are possibly the greatest stakeholders of any organizational alongside suppliers, consumers, community, and shareholders. This is because employees are responsible for implementing an organization’s strategies and performing operations. Moreover, employees are the link between the organization and consumers as well as other stakeholders. Employees also create and innovate to produce new ideas and products. When employees are not motivated to perform these responsibilities, the organization will not perform effectively. This goes down to reduced productivity, poor performance, lack of innovation, an ineffective organizational culture, and reduced profitability. This means that developing an environment where employees are motivated to act is vital for the performance and productivity of the organization. One of the signs of employee de-motivation is poor financial performance. However, highly productive and financially successful companies such as Google have illustrated how managers can apply motivational theories to increase organizational success. To understand how to motivate employees, managers must dwell on the different theories relating to employee motivation. Human motivation has been studied across different centuries by great thinkers and writers. One of the mainstream employee motivation theories was developed by Douglas McGregor in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise (Lauby, 2005, p. 3). McGregor suggested theory x and theory y as motivational theories that manager could distinguish employee motivation. The core assumption of both theories is that managers have a role of organizing resources, which includes people or employees to best benefit the organization (Lauby, 2005, p. 3). Nonetheless, these theories are deeper in their meaning. McGregor discussed each theory based on how a manager would assume different elements in terms of employee management. In theory X a manager assumes that work is not something people like and they will do always attempt to avoid it whenever probable (Lauby, 2005, p. 3). The second assumption a manager would take in theory X is that most employees are not ambitious, have minimal desire for concern, and are likely to resist change (Lauby, 2005, p. 3). The fourth assumption is that most people prefer to be led than to lead themselves. This means that most employees prefer to be coerced and controlled to accomplish organizational goals. Last but not least, most people are unintelligent and gullible, thus lack the adequate ability to solve organizational issues (Lauby, 2005, p. 3). In this case, the use of theory x for employee management is based on a hard or soft approach. The hard tactic involves implicit threats, coercion, tight controls, and micro-management of employees. This is basically a work environment involving command and control approaches (Lauby, 2005, p. 3). The soft tactic involves seeking harmony and being permissive with employees with the anticipation that they will cooperate in return. Nonetheless, the hard tactic can only result in reduced productivity, while the soft approach in increased productivity. Nonetheless, theory X is not fulfilling in terms of what employees seek especially with organizations, which is rewards in terms of money. For this case, McGregor suggested an alternative theory Y. In theory Y, a manager assumes that work can be similar to play, but only if the conditions or environment is favourable. In this case, when the conditions are suitable, people will seek responsibility (Lauby, 2005, p. 4). The second assumption is that employees will be innovative and self-directed to accomplish their organizational and work goals if they are committed. Additionally, the manager also assumes that employees will be committed to their productivity and quality goals if rewards are available that help to meet greater needs (Lauby, 2005, p. 4). Another assumption is that the aptitude of creativity spreads throughout the organization. Again, most people can manage responsibility because ingenuity and creativity are collective in the population (Lauby, 2005, p. 4). From this perspective and assumptions it is clear that employees have and prospect to align their individual goals with organizational goals. This is through the use of self-fulfilment as the motivator. In this case, employees can increase their productivity when their work objectives support their higher-level goals and needs. One way of demonstrating this theory in practice is through Google’s success. Google is one of the leading and most successful technology companies in the world valued at billions of dollars. Apart from being successful, Google is also ranked among the best companies to work for in the world (Bock, 2015, p. 136). The company has illustrated increased and repeated success both financially and performance wise. The first aspect of Google is its fun work culture and environment. This is in line with the first assumption in theory Y that work can be fun when conditions are favourable. Google offers an exceptional work environment and culture that is all about fun (Bock, 2015, p. 136). Employees at Google are allowed to report to work dressed casually (Gorey, 2014, p. 1). Moreover, the environment is well developed to offer a fun culture or environment. Chairs are filled with bean bags for comfort; the outside is fitted with table tennis and PlayStations for employee recreation (Bock, 2015, p. 136). These simple actions and facilities make favourable conditions for work to be fun, thus increasing employee motivation as well as productivity. Google’s HR also practices theory Y’s assumption that employees logically look forward to responsibilities and work, thus should be offered freedom in executing their duties. New employees are given an opportunity to meet and engage with all departments at the organizational and find a suitable project or responsibility where they feel they can give their best (Gorey, 2014, p. 1). This gives employees the freedom to choose what they can do to their level best, thus enabling them fulfil their higher-level needs. Unlike other companies that may look to hire people in only one department, it is likely that some employees will end up in a department that they find less fulfilling or are dissatisfied with. The work culture at Google also allows employees to spend about 20% of their regular working hours on personal projects (Gorey, 2014, p. 1). This means that employees have the freedom to work on their personal projects that may be their next big idea, thus fulfilling their dreams or the need to work towards their dreams. It is in such events that Google has been able to come up with continuous innovations that thrive from an environment of freedom. This example also relates to the assumption of theory X that employees naturally dislike work and will do anything to avoid it if possible. Allowing employees to work on personal projects can help to motive them by ensuring that they have their personal time to work on their own work. Google also offers a generous health policy that allows employees to take unlimited sick leaves (Cook, 2012, p. 1). This is unique in that most companies have a limited time that an employee can take seek leaves. In conclusion, Google also applies the assumption that employees will be committed to their productivity and quality goals if rewards are available that meet their higher needs. In this case, Google offer a generous rewards system that incorporates financial, security, social, and physical needs. The company offers free lunch, free gym membership, free haircuts, and generous healthcare and social covers (Gorey, 2014, p. 1). The company also trains and educates its employees at high cost that other companies may not be willing to spend (Gorey, 2014, p. 1). These provisions and perks go a long way in helping employees meet their higher-level needs such as self-actualization and self-esteem. In this case, the organizational goals are in alignment with employees’ higher-level needs. All these motivational approaches have proved to be successful for Google as it continues to lead in innovation, shareholder value, and profits. Overall, it is clear that motivation of employees is one of the most important processes that managers should develop for productive organisations. References Bock, L 2015, 'Google's 10 Things to Transform your Team and your Workplace', Fortune, vol. 171, no. 4, pp. 136-137. Cook, J., 2012. How Google Motivates their Employees with Rewards and Perks. [online] HubPages. Available at: [Accessed 19 Jun. 2015]. Gorey, A., 2014. Employee Motivation Lessons from Google. [online] Info.profilesinternational.com. Available at: [Accessed 19 Jun. 2015]. Lauby, S., 2005. Motivating employees. Alexandria, Va.: ASTD Press. Thomas, K., 2009. Intrinsic motivation at work. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. HumanH Read More